User talk:SeraphWiki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, SeraphWiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alt account

Hey there! I see that you're an alternative account to Seraphim System - can you use your Seraphim System account to leave an edit to verify this? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sure. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool - thanks a lot :-). Carry on! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

PC granted

You now hold the pending changers review flag on this account. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 02:04:59, 4 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Avatar317

• Avatar317 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California housing shortage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello.

I submitted the above article for creation and you rejected it with the statement: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

I attempted to write it with a neutral point of view, and it includes no original research that I know of, it is all sourced and referenced.

Can you please point out the SPECIFICS of what statements in the article you feel are either original research or non-neutral point of view, so I can improve the article?

Thanks!

(Additional comment) While the section: "Causes" of the CA housing shortage may APPEAR to be original research, it is really points condensed from the CA LAO report (reference 1) p 12-14. If there is a better way to reference these sources, please let me know. I tried using a named reference and including a quote, but I would need to relist the entire link every time I use a different quote, and it would appear as a different source...but if this is the better thing to do, please let me know.

Thanks!

[[User:|Avatar317]] (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Avatar317: From previous discussions, my understanding is that most Wikipedia editors have a strong preference for secondary sources. Part of the reason for this is original research, and part of it is to judge whether the analysis is WP:DUE. Our goal when writing Wikipedia articles is to represent the majority position in reliable sources. Thus where you have cited largely to the California Legislative Analyst's Office and also added (Taking into account the drastic drop in home construction after the 2008 Great Recession.) sourced to the LA Times, and follow with the unsourced statement "Had California built at the 210,000 rate since 1980, the ratio of residents to housing units in 2016 would have been 2.2, and the ratio of jobs to housing units would have been 1.0." you are not following the analysis of the LA Times, but rather developing an original argument that is not cited to any secondary source. This would be considered original research under Wikipedia's policies. If you have not read WP:SYNTH already, that might be helpful. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I had not read the WP:SYNTH, but have now. (I had read WP:DUE and tried to follow it by remaining neutral, which I feel the LAO is.) I will work on re-doing the article to remove any of those types of unsourced statements. Avatar317 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

04:02:03, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Lasya K Elzibeth

• Lasya K Elzibeth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Idi Maa Prema Katha (Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have connected through Live Wikipedia help and there few of them said that the Facebook resources I have mentioned are good and not needed to remove it. Could you please elaborate which links you think are inappropriate so that I can replace them with other sources.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasya K Elzibeth (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lasya K Elzibeth: They don't count towards establishing notability because they are not independent sources. Primary sources like Facebook and Twitter are generally accepted for basic facts. For example, if Justin Bieber tweets that he is 23 years old, most editors will not challenge that. But Justin Bieber's own Twitter is not an independent source and can not be used to establish his notability for the purpose of inclusion in the encyclopedia. The major independent secondary sources you have are more about Anchor Ravi then the film itself. The film may be notable, but the sourcing to independent, secondary sources will have to be improved before the article is accepted.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

About your user page

Hi SeraphWiki, not speaking as a member of the arbitration committee, but I would like to request you to either rephrase or remove The creation of this account has been discussed with a member of the Arbitration Committee. on your user page, as the sentence right now is very misleading. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih I removed all the extra text since it doesn't seem to be helping, I just followed the example from other editors with linked legit alt accounts and left the banner. If it's ok like this that's fine, if you think I should disclose formally I can do that too. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine now, thank you. Formal disclosure is unnecessary unless if sensitive information are involved. Alex Shih (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know.SeraphWiki (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Atloon-Johnstown scandal

Regarding your comment, there have been sentences, before deleting content you might have been better researching them.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/03/altoona-johnstown_priest_sente.html

Priest Joseph Maurizio.

Note that the majority are dead, we still report allegations on the UK scandals, why not here? I am undoing your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cencoredme (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cencoredme: I didn't revert anything, I only left a comment because I want to move the article back to mainspace. You should probably comment here before reverting anything Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Draft:Altoona-Johnstown_child_sex_abuse_scandal SeraphWiki (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct my mistake, however the point still stands and is consistent with the rules of the site regarding other such controversial cases.Cencoredme (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Legal & Literary Society

Hello SeraphWiki. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Legal & Literary Society, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Such redirects are always kept. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I replied above - I always tag redirects in my user space to keep my own subpages comprehensible to me, but there's really no reason to do it in draft space and I guess it would just be more stuff to do. Already too much to get done. But you should neither be stalking my work at AfC nor contesting these - my understanding is that the creator of the page may contest the nomination. I don't think a G6 of a draft space redirect needed to be contested at all, since the responding admin will likely be competent to answer the request.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I could recollect, we haven't ever crossed our paths before.(And, I made the comment in the section just-above, after I had already used CSDH (while patrolling G6 taggings) and then found the above-section, while landing at your t/p to check whether the template was correctly placed)So, not sure about stalking.As to the utilization of keeping the redirects, it preserves the old AFC-decline/comment-template links and that it's the current way of doing things.And, no, my understanding is that the creator of the page may contest the nomination is a fatal misunderstanding of the policy.Almost every CSD could be contested by damn anyone (sans G12 et al) and actually, there are many CSDs that can't be contested by the authors.The aforesaid template is a result of WP:CSDH and is typically meant to inform the template-tagger about why the contesting (which is in it's essentiality some polished lingo for--Hey, XYZ, that didn't fit the CSD/other policies.Hence, I declined it! ) was done.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I don't know what "G12 et al" means, and I'm not going to try to figure it out right now - CSD is not a big part of my life. The only one I use regularly is per request of page creator. Maybe in a few months, if I have time for NPP, I will learn more about it. Right now, I'm really just trying to help with a critical backlog.SeraphWiki (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

G12et al is shorthand for copyvio or other reasons that would require deletion via speedy for any page, not just an article. For example, vandalism , or attack pages, or nonsense, or really outrageous pure advertisements, As for duplicates, see my comment above. The AFCH submission should have made the redirect. If your acceptances are not doing this, perhaps this account needs to be given the AFC acceptance permission. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:United States Marine Corps: Ground Sensor Platoon

Can you tell me what you think the deleted content is a verbatim copy of? Nthep (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto all the other draft articles you've marked for revdel. Please make sure you use {{Copyvio-revdel}} properly. Cross checking the revisions against the the source takes long enough without having to identify which revisions and what the source is first. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: The mission statement is a verbatim copy from the source it is cited to - this does not look like a very reliable source for official government documents, but (if) it is government text it might not be copyrighted - though verbatim copy could still be considered plagiarism. I just learned about the revdel template, I can try to track down the sources for the others also and add it to the templates from yesterday, and I will add the URLs and revision ranges from now on.SeraphWiki (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

this script might help with that in the future. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: @Primefac: Can you please also take a look here Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Recent_listings - I followed the instructions on the copyvio template but I think I may have done something wrong because they are not listed on the January 3 page and January 3 has no separate heading. One of them is for an editor who copied several citations from another paper (including their page numbers) - I had to restore the copyvio template after he removed it, but I don't think this would be causing the issue on the listing page. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages marked with {{revdel}} end up in Category:Requested RD1 redactions, not on WP:CP. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I used copyvio for two that were more significant - one is largely promotional but I think the subject may be notable, so I didn't know if CSD would be appropriate. However, it has significant copy and pastes of copyrighted material throughout the article. The other was copied citations, I don't know what the consensus on this is but the golden rule of substantial taking is "if you would mind if someone took it from you it is substantial" - my opinion is citations (with even the page numbers copied directly from a source) are a copying issue, but I wasn't sure how others would feel. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

to clarify the underlying problem, marines.mil is a US government source, and text it can be assumed to be PD-US. marines.org is not a government source, but the website of a private association. It is affiliated with the Marines, but membership is open to marines or anyone else. Its pages carry the copyright of the association. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the issue I had with determining the source for the document (and figuring out its copyright status) is that the document is sourced to Rage University which is self-described as: "a free online University for global and local activists...Rage University has progressively expanded its scope from the People's Republic of China to offer access to activists worldwide." SeraphWiki (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Rage Uni content is free to use. If there's a question it's generally good to find pages like this which explicitly spell it out. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the revisions etc. However if you find copyrighted material, please remove it then ask for revdel. As the template says Note to the nominator: Make sure the page has already been reverted to a non-infringing revision or that infringing text has been removed or replaced before submitting this request. Nthep (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: Sure, I see you removed the long quote as well. I thought it might be a bit too long, but I wasn't sure. Those types of blockquotes would probably only be fair use, not free, but their use in articles is commonplace.SeraphWiki (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In a longer article I probably would have left it in but as it stands it's the entire article bar four lines which makes use excessive. Nthep (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kiwi Farms

Hello SeraphWiki. I've declined your CSD request as I think this needs broader discussion. I think that best option is to take the page to WP:MfD if you insist that the material is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vejvančicky: I don't insist per se, but the article is full of poorly sourced negative BLP content. For example unsourced statements comparing people to Hitler and Nazis, statements sourced to court documents, the Daily Beast. NYPost, PJMedia - almost none of these sources are suitable for this type of content. I considered it before nominating - I don't mind cleaning up articles, but wen I looked it over carefully I didn't see much in the draft that could be salvaged and the article has previously been deleted as A7. I guess I will try nominating it for MfD as a breach of BLP. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Corrections to Draft:Communication Research Reports

Hello! I just received your notice about our pending article on Communication Research Reports. Indeed the last review (21 Nov 2017) also critiqued us for having external links in-body, and it seems that we had left one in by accident (at the very start of the article itself. D'oh!

We have removed this final external link now, and we hope that we're ready for final review as a result. Thanks for your careful read of our submission.

NOTE: The only external links we have now are in our References section

Bowmanspartan (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

Good call. The user is almost certainly a sock, and this is an off-wiki dispute that we don't need. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft G6 tags

Hi, as far as I can remember, when an AFC draft is reviewed and moved into mainspace, the draft link is left behind as a redirect. I've never seen it tagged as G6 before - has the script changed while I wasn't looking? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I seem to remember them being cleaned up and deleted when I was last at AfC, but you probably know better then I do. Is there a reason to leave them there when nothing links to them? SeraphWiki (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll go and review an AfC submission now and get back to you! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked them before tagging them btw, they're only linked to sandboxes and usertalk pages, some of other reviewers and some as double redirects. Did I miss something? SeraphWiki (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, having actually found an AfC submission I want to pass - Lygon Arms, the draft Draft:The lygon arms is left behind. It doesn't cause any harm and if we deleted it, the user may look at the link on their talk page and think "where's my draft gone"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes I think the redirects are sometimes deleted by admins cleaning up in draft space, but not immediately. I guess it makes sense to leave them up for a time. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:These redirects are never deleted.Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but it never hurts to AGF. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my visit to this t/p was post the CSDH decline.If I had seen this conversation, I would have avoided the template:)Winged Blades^Godric 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really been back at AfC for months, I'm just trying to help out with the backlog. I think I've made about a dozen CSD requests during the year I've been editing and I've been pretty careful about it. I'm just used to tagging redirects from my own userspace, but draft space doesn't effect me so if you guys want to leave them there, I'm not going to argue about it.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

what is actually supposed to happen, is that the draft page is linked to the talk page of the resulting article. If it does not happen automatically, the most likely reason is that the draft was moved without using the AFCH template, which usually but not always means it was moved by someone without the AFC permission. If it was moved legitimately, the redirect should be done. If not, it means the article need to be rechecked to see if it does meet mainspace requirements. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: I am using the AFCH script and I was added to AFC participants - is this what you mean by the AfC permission? The script is creating the redirects automatically. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

in a situation like this I think it simplest to fix the ones it did wrong, and wait till it happens again. At that point ask at the AFC talk p. (My own experience with that script is that it still makes unpredictable errors, but fewer than it used to) DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_/_removing_talk_page_posts_by_User:SeraphWiki - closed, of course. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the ordeal

I wanted to formally apologise if it seemed like i was trying to antagonise you. I misunderstood Wikipedia policy in that I believed it was unethical and against the rules to remove content from one's own talk page. I mistakenly believed you were acting out of self-interest and malice in that regard and I am sincerely sorry. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine, I see there is consensus developing for your proposal at Max Landis. Good luck. SeraphWiki (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For helping a Noob

	The Shepherd
	Improving my first article now, and I'll make sure to resubmit when it's ready. I'll reach out for help as I learn. Thanks for reviewing my draft so quickly! Ragingcoffeestainedotaku (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

10:59:27, 10 January 2018 review of submission by Sivaprasathsrc

• Sivaprasathsrc (talk · contribs)
  • User:Sivaprasathsrc/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I know the reason why my article was declined?...And to make sure, it's not my final copy and I would like to build upon on this article further.

It is sourced to Wikipedia and youtube which are not reliable sources. I can't find any secondary sources for notability, and unless you are able to find such sources the draft is unlikely to be accepted, but I will leave it for another reviewer. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi SeraphWiki, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:31:25, 8 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DigbyRobinson

• DigbyRobinson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:On a Knife Edge (documentary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SeraphWiki

I am the author of the page about the documentary entitled On a Knife Edge. Thank you very much for taking the time to edit it. I have a few questions about why it was rejected and which sources presented a problem.

I have reviewed the pages you referred me to regarding the guidelines for film notability as well as sources.

First off - given the hundreds or likely thousands of independent films that have wiki pages that fall under none of those guidelines, I am wondering why a film that aired on PBS, and by their own calculation had over a million viewers, and also has won top prizes at major film festivals such as the Grand Jury Prize at the Portland Film Festival, is not considered notable. For instance, I came across another film with a similar title: that seems to tick none of the notability boxes. There are literally dozens more independent films and documentaries that I could point you to that have similarly no notability characteristics, and unlike ON A KNIFE EDGE they have not appeared at major film festivals nor aired nationally on PBS.

It's not realistic for all independently produced films in 2017 to expect to receive two full length profiles in a place like the NYT or WaPo or NYer. Film Inquiry and Movie Maker Magazine are two highly respected online industry journals. The film's director, Jeremy Williams, did author the Movie Maker Magazine piece, but that is one of their format features - they ask producers and directors to publish testimonials and/or advice. They edit and publish the piece and assume responsibility for its veracity and in that way, is no different than an interview - that is to say, it is much different than if Mr. Williams had published the piece on his own blog or on the film's website. If he had written a similar piece for Vanity Fair or as an op-ed in the Times, would it not be accepted? I believe it would, based on the prestige of the outlet. I would argue that Film Inquiry and Movie Maker, while obviously nowhere near the prestige of either of those two outlets mentioned, are heavily trafficked, industry standard online publications, and should suffice as a source on wikipedia.

I also wonder about citing woundsofwhiteclay.com. There are literally dozens of high-level, reputable sources, ABC, FOX, and NBC News included, that cite the population and liquor sales statistics in Whiteclay, but I made what I suppose is an editorial choice to cite woundsofwhiteclay.com in order to direct traffic there. This is an independent journalism project that WON the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Journalism Award - one of the most prestigious awards in journalism. They beat the New Yorker, HBO, National Geographic, and many others to do so. See here: . I can change this source to Fox or ABC News very easily, but when an independent project has excelled at such a high level, is it really necessary?

My final question: is it acceptable to cite an organization's webpage for primary source information or does the citation need to be a third-source report? For instance: If the sentence in the encyclopedia says "This film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Portland Film Festival" can the source be the Portland Film Festival's webpage where they have announced their awards? Or does it need to be a third party reporting on the Festival awards? This is relevant in two places in this wiki page: 1) in the list of accolades, and 2) in the first sentence, which states that the film had its world premiere at SF Doc Fest in June 2017, I cited a well-respected industry news blog "What Not to Doc" which covered the festival, but I could just as easily have cited the SF Doc Festival announcement page itself.

Please advise on all this at your earliest convenience, and again, many thanks for your time and attention to this page.

All my best

DigbyRobinson (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)DigbyRobinson

Just recording that this person has contacted the #help IRC channel. I have not reviewed the submission in full as asked of Digby, I had dinner to eat, but I shall be taking a look. !dave 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the short answer is that I agree with Seraphim System here. I'll answer your concerns bit by bit:

• First off - given the hundreds or likely thousands of independent films that have wiki pages that fall under none of those guidelines, I am wondering why a film that aired on PBS, and by their own calculation had over a million viewers, and also has won top prizes at major film festivals such as the Grand Jury Prize at the Portland Film Festival, is not considered notable. -- We Wikipedia editors like to point at a page titled Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Indeed, other stuff exists. You are welcome to nominate these pages for deletion at WP:AFD if you do not believe they are notable. Unfortunately we do not work by precedent, if we did, then Wikipedia's life expectancy would face a severe cut :) Some articles do slip by the cracks despite all our measures.

  It's not realistic for all independently produced films in 2017 to expect to receive two full length profiles in a place like the NYT or WaPo or NYer. Film Inquiry and Movie Maker Magazine are two highly respected online industry journals. The film's director, Jeremy Williams, did author the Movie Maker Magazine piece, but that is one of their format features - they ask producers and directors to publish testimonials and/or advice. They edit and publish the piece and assume responsibility for its veracity and in that way, is no different than an interview - that is to say, it is much different than if Mr. Williams had published the piece on his own blog or on the film's website. If he had written a similar piece for Vanity Fair or as an op-ed in the Times, would it not be accepted? I believe it would, based on the prestige of the outlet. I would argue that Film Inquiry and Movie Maker, while obviously nowhere near the prestige of either of those two outlets mentioned, are heavily trafficked, industry standard online publications, and should suffice as a source on wikipedia. -- The Movie Maker source is therefore not independent, and is unfortunately disqualified from judging the notability of the article's subject. Interviews are not independent sources I'm afraid. The other source looks okay, but I think that the 'nationally-known critic' bit is quite clear, it's open to interpretation regarding the context of the film, along with all of WP:NFILM (was it made on a non-English speaking country? was it made in a developing country?). As a film published in the USA, I don't think I'm going to grant much leeway with that criterion.

  I also wonder about citing woundsofwhiteclay.com. There are literally dozens of high-level, reputable sources, ABC, FOX, and NBC News included, that cite the population and liquor sales statistics in Whiteclay, but I made what I suppose is an editorial choice to cite woundsofwhiteclay.com in order to direct traffic there. This is an independent journalism project that WON the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Journalism Award - one of the most prestigious awards in journalism. They beat the New Yorker, HBO, National Geographic, and many others to do so. See here: . I can change this source to Fox or ABC News very easily, but when an independent project has excelled at such a high level, is it really necessary? -- We have to focus on the notability of the film. Not every source has to prove the subject's notability; if you were looking for an answer about its reliability, I'd say 'yes' with that info, as long as it is independent of the creators of the film.

  My final question: is it acceptable to cite an organization's webpage for primary source information or does the citation need to be a third-source report? For instance: If the sentence in the encyclopedia says "This film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Portland Film Festival" can the source be the Portland Film Festival's webpage where they have announced their awards? -- We always prefer secondary sources, but I think, in this instance, if you cannot find one, it should be alright for purposes of verifying the information given. And, as a side note, I will tell you the simple keystone of WP:RS: does the source have some sort of editorial oversight, and does it have a reputation for solid fact-checking? Most blogs do not, as they are published by one person and nobody fact-checking on the other end.

I hope you have found my reply helpful, DigbyRobinson. If I have missed anything here, SeraphWiki, please go ahead and inform Digby of it, and of course, as the decliner, you can add your two pence to the discussion.

Thanks, !dave 18:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

DigbyRobinson I think User talk:My name is not dave covered the major points, but I will add that I did not accept the MovieMaker source for notability purposes because the specific article was written by the filmmaker - Wikipedia's policies require independent, secondary sources to establish notability. I generally would not consider blogtalkradio WP:RS, in general. If the sourcing issues were cleaned up, and it was resubmitted I would be inclined to pass it as long as there was a verifiable citation for the Portland Film Festival - it might not survive AfD, but whether or not it is enough for WP:NFILM would have to be discussed. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki and User talk:My name is not dave thank you both for clarifying. I have revised the page and included sources such as the Rapid City Journal, KEVN FOX, Albuquerque Journal, and the New York Times as references. I removed the Movie Maker Magazine and swapped the blog announcement of the Portland Film Festival Award with the official Portland Film Festival Awards Announcement Page. I opted to leave "What Not to Doc" as the secondary source for the World Premiere status of the film rather than the official SF Doc Page, only because the information is more readily accessible (that is, there is less info on the page to sort through to find the relevant reference.) I can change this if necessary - please advise. Many thanks as always! DigbyRobinson (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)DigbyRobinson

References

02:30:01, 11 January 2018 review of submission by 2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C

• 2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wayne Miller (poet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please explain how this page for American poet Wayne Miller is any different from the following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Prufer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Eli_Gordon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Vuong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Henry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Singer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_McCrae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyelle_McSweeney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Motika

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Nezhukumatathil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Mann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gallaher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Clark_(poet)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Katz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Lemon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Biddinger

or any of the other dozens and dozens of pages for other contemporary American poets on Wikipedia who have published multiple books and won multiple national-level prizes. Those of us trying to get this page up don't understand how Miller's page is somehow less notable or less appropriate for Wikipedia than the above pages.

Thank you.

2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Every page must be judged on its own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

As a note, though, Seraph, if you're declining something as NOT, it's best to give a bit more explanation. The link to LINKFARM is fine, but the 26 references aren't all spam. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Is the problem simply that there are too many loose links at the end? We added those because of the past declines that didn't include enough notable information and reviews in a previous draft. If we cut most of those external links (not the footnotes) would that do it? Thank you.

2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought that the external links section was excessive. That was my understanding of the previous reviewers comment as well. If the EL section was reduced, I think it is more or less ready to be accepted. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very helpful. We'll cut it down and resubmit ASAP.

2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wayne Miller page has been resubmitted. Thank you again.

2601:282:500:DF4A:FCE5:F79B:A68B:F20C (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

04:06:03, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Personman

• Personman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Brough (game designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SeraphWiki, not requesting re-review yet, but curious what improvements you think are necessary. You used the "reads like an advertisement" template on the rejection, which calls out three categories of potential problem: NPOV, sourcing, and notability. I think what's already there is clearly enough to satisfy notability (four-time finalist for a major industry award, creator of an already-deemed-notable game with its own existing page) and sourcing (links to four well-established publications both in and out of the games industry). Is your critique on the NPOV axis? If so, there is only one potentially non-neutral line that I see, the bit I added noting that two of his games "elaborate on the distinctive design style found in Zaga-33 and 868-HACK." As a member of the indie games community, I think this statement is quite objective – these games were influential enough to launch an entire subgenre known as "Broughlikes" (a pun on "roguelike" and his name) and adds a bit of flavor and interest to the article. That said, if it looks like advertising to an outsider, I'm open to rewriting or removing that line.

Please let me know if this is in fact the issue you identified, or if there are others that I'm missing. Thanks! – Personman (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Personman:

• "developer who has garnered attention and multiple Independent Games Festival award nominations for his eclectic roguelike games" - does this have a source?
• BECOME A GREAT ARTIST IN JUST 10 SECONDS - was this written in all caps deliberately?
• "Other notable releases include Imbroglio (a 2016 Design honorable mention) and Cinco Paus, both small-grid iOS roguelikes that elaborate on the distinctive design style found in Zaga-33 and 868-HACK" - don't just tell us they are notable, does this have a source? right now it is unsourced.

I agree with you that it might pass notability, the Wired and Guardian article are in-depth, but the draft still needs some work before it can be moved to mainspace. SeraphWiki (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki:

The "multiple nominations" part is already well sourced. I could link a bunch of random reviews that talk about him breathlessly for the "garnered attention" part, or I suppose just remove it. It feels inoffensive to me though?

BECOME A GREAT ARTIST IN JUST 10 SECONDS is in fact the official styling of the game's name, yes. It is written that way on both the linked IGF awards page, and the games list on the linked personal website.

It's difficult to source that claim, except by something like total number of reviews – I used the word "notable" because they are his more recent, not-yet-award-winning "big" releases, ie, commercial rather than free/jam games. Certainly more people have played them than most of his other works. I don't think it's possible to access actual statistics about this though. I guess I could change the opening of that sentence to "More recent commercial releases include," would that satisfy you? – Personman (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Personman: The puffery words I'm most concerned about "garnered attention" "notable" and "distinctive" - other than that, the article could have more substantive content added to it from the in-depth sources available, but it can of course be improved after creation. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: Ok, I've removed them and resubmitted! Thanks for your help. –Personman (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

15:23:52, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Gretejam

• Gretejam (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Patient Voices Programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I struggle in many ways here but will focus on the issues in my suggested article. I could understand the first rejection (november) that it was too much of a "promotion" article. In my second review I delete quite a lot and tried to make it as factual as possible. Was therefore a bit surprised to receive an identical rejection comment. Today I have added another external reference, but other than that I think I need more specific advice, alternatively that you just make the necessary revisions. Grete Jamissen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretejam (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There are no references given for claims that are promotional, such as describing the "aims" of the programme. Wikipedia articles do not usually describe the "aims" of an organization based on what the organization's say about themselves. This is why press releases aren't accepted as sources under WP:NORG and why, unfortunately, so many articles are turned down at AfC. I understand that getting used to the way Wikipedia articles are written can be difficult for new editors, because it is different from other kinds of writing you may have done. But I see you are very new and have made only six edits to the encyclopedia! I appreciate your attempts to contribute, and I think it can be helpful for new editors to work on existing articles with more experienced editors until they become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Creating new articles is actually much harder than working on existing ones, and improving existing articles can be very rewarding. I hope I've been able to answer your question. SeraphWiki (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

14:05:31, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Gutemberg Fox

• Gutemberg Fox (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gutemberg Raposo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think I fixed the issue with the footnotes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutemberg Raposo (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This was declined by a second editor shortly after I declined, so it is kind of a moot point.SeraphWiki (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

3 January Submission Review - Assistance Needed

Hi! I was hoping you could help me. I'm new to creating an article and you recently rejected my article due to not containing reliable sources. I really need help in understanding what's considered reliable. I have read the guidelines but perhaps I'm not clear enough. I've included many reputable sources (Modern Drummer, Drum Magazine, Podcasts, etc.) that are completely independent from the artist. Can you please help me decipher how to approach the needed changes? It would be really appreciated! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officefan0385 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Officefan0385: Can you please link me to the draft? SeraphWiki (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Wesley_Arrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officefan0385 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Facebook and itunes are not reliable sources. Additionally the article needs to be revised for tone, for example "and even provided his expertise to the solo album for Michael Franzio, alone. among others" and "An experiment in post-hardcore that’s more fun than work, Sianvar has built its own cult following and sells out tour dates thanks to the caliber of musicians tied to it, and their popular bands. Sianvar" - There are numerous uncited promotional statements like this throughout the article. SeraphWiki (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: Thank you. If I modify the tone, and remove the unreliable sources, such as itunes and Facebook does the article fit more inline with expectations for approved articles? Or do I require additional steps such as further research?

16:18:14, 10 January 2018 review of submission by Esme Shepherd

• Esme Shepherd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kishen Kower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Have you rejected Kishen Kower because it tells of a probably real person in a historical context and not a character in a second rate film or series that will be forgotten in a few years time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esme Shepherd (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No currently at least half of the content is a plot summary, it also does not follow MOS:FICTION, namely fictional plot summaries should not be written in past tense as historical fact. The historical background is cited only to a primary source. Does the source discuss this character or is this WP:OR? If you are presenting it as a history, the sourcing must be significantly improved to secondary sources that discuss this, since the majority of the "Story" seems to come from poems.SeraphWiki (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I will think about what you say. The historical background is in fact based on two primary sources, as given. Beyond that there is the literary response here in England, namely two poems and two stories. Anyone coming across this literature ought to be able to look up that background and know it is based on real events. I did not know myself at first even when these events occurred. I must say I am disappointed when I see such an ocean of trivia on Wikipedia about matters of zero importance.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC) The story is for the most part historically true, as recorded by Malcolm, so MOS:FICTION does not apply and the past tense is wholly appropriate. There is no WP:OR at all in my article. If I rewrite my article to make this clear does it have a chance of being accepted?

In my opinion there is WP:OR and the sourcing is insufficient to support your claims of historicity, there is also possibly WP:SYNTH between fiction or non-fiction sources, and the story section does not cite which source these statements are taken from. I would not pass an article unless these issues were resolved, but maybe another reviewer will feel differently.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I can see that you were right to reject the article as it stands but this was my first attempt. I should structure it beginning with the historical side of it for which I gave sources. The dispute over marriage and the resulting warfare, its resolution and the death of Kishen Kower by self-administered poison are all historical facts collected and recorded by Malcolm and supported by the the reports in the East India Gazetteer. There are further facts I didn't mention that I could perhaps add. I am instructed to give the facts in my own words not extracts from sources, if this is WP:OR then the instructions are self-contradictory. I have added nothing and given no opinions of my own. Having thus detailed this history, I could then go on to the literary response to it in England, which naturally does include individual embroidery but only in the details.

I see you've separated Landon and Malcolm and that's a good start. If you can find secondary sources that discuss Malcolm that would be even better - the strong preference is for current sources, over sources from 1828, etc. There is still WP:OR because you are analyzing a primary source.SeraphWiki (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC) You still give no example of what you mean. As I said before, it is impossible to put the content of a source into one's own words without first understanding what it says, in other words, analysing it. For instance, in my article I state that Ameer Khan was a reprehensible character, an analysis, if you insist, of the original words in my source:

• Ameer Khan appears to have been a man of little talent and courage. His career was marked by deeds of treachery, perjury, and barbarity, unredeemed by a single highminded act. Had he been a man of real talent as a statesman and a general, he might, at one period of his life, have ventured, with a fair prospect of success, on the bold enterprise of restoring the Mohommedan ascendancy in Central India; but this was an effort beyond his range, and the Patan commander whose name once made India tremble, has sunk into the powerless, chieftain of a petty state.

I am however adding no opinion of my own beyond that given in the source. All I am doing is being concise. I am at a loss to see how any article on Wikipedia could ever have been written without analysis. It any has been, it is almost certainly worthless.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I have now added a link to John Malcolm on Wikipedia and the full title of the source, namely:

• A Memoir of Central India, including Malwa, and the adjoining Provinces; with the History and copious Illustrations of the past and present Condition of that Country. By Major-General Sir John Malcolm, G.C.B. K.L.S. 2 vols. 8vo. Second Edition. Map. pp. 1127. London, 1824.

Request on 14:44:56, 11 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lloan

• Lloan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fit Body Boot Camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SeraphWiki,

Looks like you forgot to leave a helpful reason as to why you believe this article shouldn't be approved. I've been working on it for over a month with another editor, removed over 70% of content and only left facts. Let me know what should be done different in order for this article to be approved.

Lloan (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. For example:

• The franchise offers clients 30-minute group workout sessions[2], nutritional guidance and group accountability.[3] The workouts are called 'Afterburn workouts'[4], based on high intensity interval training (HIIT), exercise stacking and active rest periods.
• Select locations offer a program designed for adults 55+ named FitBody Forever.

SeraphWiki (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: I removed that content. Anything else you can point out that would impede this article from being approved? I've even disclosed that I work for the franchise, but I'm not being paid to write this article, rather I'm writing it because I've learned a lot about the company and they're very well known. Thanks for pointing the above out.

Everytime you get a decline at AfC, there is a message posted to your talk page that links to several relevant Wikipedia policies. Have you read those? SeraphWiki (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

a== 14:02:37, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Iblum ==

• Iblum (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Samuel Rosenberg (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help to understand why the article was declined. I used references and I can't figure out where in the article, do I need to improve footnotes?

This is the reason: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblum (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iblum: This is a good topic for the article, but the references need a little work. Facebook is not considered a reliable source. Most of the article is cited to TFAOI, which I think is a reliable source for facts (it is cited in several published books) but as a primary source can not be used to establish notability. Some of the secondary sources are passing mentions, like an obituary. I've reviewed a number of the references and they are not what would be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article - please review WP:NBIO and WP:RS for more detail about what types of sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, and feel free to contact me if you have further questions. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

I went to review Draft:Made Up Stories (production company) about five seconds after you did, and I feel this is very much newbie-biting.

The decline reason (in the box, which is vastly more visible) is "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information", yet you subsequently left a comment of "Please keep working on it, the topic seems notable". I'm not quite sure why you used perhaps the most aggressively-worded template we have to convey that.

Secondly, the rationale itself is very unclear: the article is a stub (even noting the additional paragraph down the bottom), yet you've left a comment stating "Per the policy data should be put in context - another issue is that the article has a lede, but there should not be anything in the lede that is not in the body of the article." You didn't link the policy to actually explain this in any depth (what policy are you even referring to?), you didn't explain what a lede was, and you perplexingly applied rules for a lede to a stub (the article doesn't have a body in that case!)

This really isn't helpful: what is a brand-new editor meant to do with that? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is also an invalid reason to use "NOT" as a decline. Not notable, sure. Needs more prose and less bullets, sure, but it's certainly not a directory. Please make sure you're using justifiable reasons for declining. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac I think WP:DIRECTORY applies. It includes WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY - a redirect could be set up for filmography and discography but I think the policy is clear. Wider context means there should be an article there, not just a listing of creative works. If you don't want editors to use this template for declines for some other reason, such as it is poorly worded, or it is confusing for new editors, or its validity is too open to interpretation, it should probably be removed from AFCH entirely.

The Drover's Wife I linked to the wrong subsection of the policy first, so that is what you saw on your talk page. It is corrected in the article, but I forgot to leave a note for you. I'm sorry about that. And you're right that I should have linked you to MOS:LEDE. An article with a scaffold/table of contents is not a stub - the lede of the article is the text that precedes the table of contents. In this case the article body is mostly a filmography which was linked to WP:DIRECTORY because we don't have a WP:NOTFILMOGRAPHY link as we do for bibliographies. I am sorry this was confusing for you. If you improve the article so it has some encyclopedic content and follows MOS:LEDE I will most likely accept the draft, if you don't want to do that you can wait to see if another reviewer is willing to accept. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me as if I'm the author: as I very clearly said the first time, I'm another AfC reviewer who came along just after you and was pretty unimpressed at what I saw. The article is 208 words long (excepting lists and such): how exactly would you propose that poor editor divide the content up? You seem to have a bit of a habit of spurious and poorly-explained decline reasons, an aggressive attitude towards newbies in conversation, as well as a questionable attention to detail: I'm not sure Wikipedia is served very well by you reviewing AfC submissions at present, to be honest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not welcome on my talk page, I leave welcome messages for most new editors and I am available to answer their questions. I have not really looked through your AfC history, and I'm not really interested in it, but in reviewing the drafts that were accepted over the last 24 hours I found two that were accepted with citations to Wikipedia, and one that was accepted with a COPYVIO. I am also concerned that you think an article that does not follow MOS:LEDE and mostly consists of a filmography should have been accepted. I also left a thorough comment explaining it, so I think maybe there is something else bothering you. I don't know what it is, but please do not post on my talk page anymore to complain about drafts and reviews you are uninvoled in. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've accepted one AfC submission in the last 24 hours, which has neither of those things. Are you sure you've got the right editor? The article needed to be declined (for failing WP:CORP in its present form), but the unwarranted aggressive tone and the peculiar railing about a stub having a lede section warranted raising some concerns about your behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I would assess most articles that have a scaffold and table of contents are start class. You are entitled to have your own opinion, different than mine, but I don't appreciate your calling my competence into question because I disagree with you. I have cleaned up and accepted several articles in the past 24 hours, and rejected more. I have also, as I said, cleaned up COPYVIOs and citations in articles accepted by editors other than myself, so please do not come to my talk page and say Wikipedia is not being served well by contributions. No editor is perfect, and I may have used the wrong template this time, but I don't think either of our time is well spent continuing to argue about this. Disagreeing with me over a declined article is a far easier problem to fix than disagreeing over an accepted article. Accepted articles need to go to AfD - in this case, you can wait until the draft is resubmitted and decline it with your preferred justification WP:NORG or whatever that may be. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said that you cannot use the NOT reason ever (I use it a fair bit), I'm just saying that I can immediately think of four better decline reasons that more fully encapsulate what needs doing (without having to spend a lot of time commenting). As you can see, I declined the draft as "bio" which tells them that they need to add more (good) sources, and my note expands on that a little bit. You could have declined as "v" for a lack of suitable sources, explaining that we need more.

My choice of wording probably wasn't great, but by "invalid" I meant "you really shouldn't have used that one". We do all make mistakes, and none of us are perfect, but this thread should serve as a note for you to be more careful in the future. In other words, please try to see this as a learning opportunity rather than us just being asses. Tone on the internet is often hard to judge, which is why criticism (unless blatantly harsh) should always be taken with a grain of salt. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

14:10:25, 12 January 2018 review of submission by NB Cel

• NB Cel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Celestino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does my article appear as an ad since there are references but mostly, it is a brief presentation of a fashion brand and its evolution through time?

NB Cel (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the third rejection in three days. Please do not continue to resubmit this article before reading the policies that other editors have referred you to. They should be posted on your talk page. I can answer specific questions but I can't read the policies or write the articles for you. If you don't understand why language like "Celestino combines the approachable image of fast fashion brands with the quality of luxury ones together with a customer-centric approach" is promotional, my suggestion would be to take a break from new article creation and work on improving existing articles until you get a better feel for how Wikipedia articles are written. You name NB Cel seems to be similar to the brand name - have you declared a COI in connection with this article? SeraphWiki (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki link

Thanks for your time on the Dylan walshe entry. I have added and replaced references. Also have many printed articles too for the Irish artist. The new links should suffice. Thank you Krislbarg (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Citations fixed on Draft: 2017 Macron e-mail leaks

Fixed all the citations on my article by removing duplicate names. Thanks for the heads up! Ftxs (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Transitional Council

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Transitional Council. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:4Musics AFC submission

@SeraphWiki I have resubmitted the Draft:4Musics article with proper citations.If their is any more corrections please let me know(Am new to wiki edits, please point out which all citations are wrong by commenting in source) or please feel free to correct them. Thank you Frizel Francis 11:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Frizel Francis(talk)

Frizel FrancisThe article has at least two citations that I saw to Wikipedia. I an open to accepting it based on the Deccan Chronicle and TOI sources, but the citations to Wikipedia need to be removed. It would also be better to add some prose content to the article before it is moved to mainspace. Articles should not consist of a brief introduction followed by several list sections. The MOS:LEDE of an article should be a summary of the contents of the article. If these issues are addressed, I would be open to accepting the draft. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-edit reply

@SeraphWiki

I have done necessary changes in the Draft:4Musics. removed the wiki citations. regarding the prose content i hope after moving to mainspace it will be improved further by the community itself.Can you breif about how MOS:LEDE is affecting my article? please pointout and provide an example so i can improve it. (If its okay to edit later,do approve the article for now) Thank You Frizel Francis 07:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Frizel Francis(talk)

The article has no encyclopedic prose content. Articles in this format serve little purpose other than to promote an artist's discography, filmography or publications and as such I am reluctant to move them to mainspace, especially since you have indicated that you will leave it to "be improved further by the community itself". The list of works should be of a reasonable length compared to the prose itself - I would accept a stub without the list, or a start class article with a reasonable list of works, relative the the length of the prose, but I can't accept a draft that is essentially an advertisement in the hopes that it will "be improved further by the community" - another reviewer may give you a different answer.SeraphWiki (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

reply @SeraphWiki

By hope(Dont take it as the other way) I mean in your first reply you mentioned about accepting the draft by removing wiki citations and i thought prose as some structuring works my misunderstandment. I thought its better to be handled by experts thats all, Thats why i even submitted the article as draft for review(thought the reviewers can do live edits).

I can add more content(Encyclopedic) but May i know what you meant by reasonable list of work? Frizel Francis 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Frizel Francis(talk)

Looking through articles on similar topics, most have a long list of works, and I will follow the convention in existing articles - the prose content varies from minimum Sharry Mann Altaf Raja Malkit Singh to more substantial Nazia and Zoheb. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

reply

@SeraphWiki

I have done the necessary changes, all the available list of works are included. please have a look Frizel Francis 06:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Frizel Francis(talk)

Request on 09:42:27, 15 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Astronomich

• Astronomich (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MyChat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Astronomich (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Hello, thank you for your review! I am the author of Draft:MyChat. I understand your comment "Please add more independent reliable sources to establish notability." But the point is that MyChat was initially oriented on Russian and Ukrainian audience, so we actually have reliable second sources but they are written in Russian language. We are new for English-speaking audience. What is not less important, we have approved articles of MyChat in Russian and Ukrainian sections of Wikipedia. However, I've added 3 additional external links as secondary sources (3 last links in "External links" section). I would be glad to hear your response. Thank you for your time. Astronomich (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links are different from references. This article has only one citation to a "how to install" from a website that looks more like a hidden advertisement for MyChat than an independent, reliable source. I think it is MyChat's own website. The external links link to the company's website several times and also to download links at Softpedia and CNET.SeraphWiki (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding 4musics page

@SeraphWiki Thanks for accepting the article and for the edits. Frizel Francis 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizel Francis (talk • contribs)

Nina Teicholz

Hi there: Regarding my article on Nina Teicholz. I'm confused by your comments that I don't have adequate independent sourcing. I added footnotes citing the articles she has written because I was told I needed to by another wiki editor in order to prove she had indeed written for those publications. Her book "The Big Fat Lie" was a New York Times bestseller and was named a top book by both the Economist and Wall Street Journal, which are independent credible sources. The article also quotes doctors who both support her findings and who disagree with her findings that fat is not unhealthy. Again, these are independent sources. The book has been reviewed in scores of publications, but I did not include all of them because I didn't want to be accused of Peacocking. So let's review: A well-known woman journalist who has written for New York Times, Wash Post, Atlantic, Gourmet Magazine writes a book with a controversial premise that is not only a New York bestseller, but WSJ and Economist rate it as a best book in 2014. It is reviewed in scores of major publications and is warmly greeted by some medical experts and disputed by others (cited in the article to maintain balance). If you could help me understand where I am falling short on the independent, credible sources, I would be most appreciative. And yes, I have read multiple articles about writing for Wikipedia, and I've edited a fair number of Wikipedia entries. I certainly welcome clear, constructive, and actionable feedback. But to reject this article because of a lack of credible sourcing is difficult to understand. Leslieaun (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Circling back to this question. Can you please provide guidance on my questions as to your rejection of this article? Thanks! Leslieaun (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lesliaun: I have already replied to this question at your talk page. A second reviewer has also left some comments. I was not able to find the references because you had cited only the name of the newspaper and the date of publication without the article title. It seems the reviewer after me has left additional comments. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

IMDb

Just as a reminder, IMDb is not acceptable as a reference. I'm not saying that you have to fail a draft for containing IMDb refs, but if you find them you need to remove them (or move them to the External links section). Thank you. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, will do, I thought it was a reliable source for whether a film exists, but looking over the IMDb templates again I see they are for external links. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Air France Flight 5672

@SeraphWiki: Hello, SeraphWiki! Regarding on the copyright issue on my article, I don't believe that I had violated the copyright (at least at the time). I didn't copyedit anything at all.. I can assure you on that. However, I should confirm that I read the report chronologically, analysed it, and then concluded it in a short conclusion text. So, i can tell the readers in chronological order.

I analysed that report for hours, read it repeatedly and later concluded it. I published that article after several long days. Had I copyedited, I should've did it in a day or maybe even in hours.

Sadly, it is pretty similar to the report (I can't find a way to differentiate it even more since my English is bad). So, the way I explained the accident was controversial. That's the truth.

I do believe that this is also the best way to explain the cause of the crash or the accident chronologically. I'm an aviation enthusiast and from what I saw from the other articles, they also explain it chronologically and sometimes it bear similarity to the factual report.

So please, give me another chance to see it. Tell me where I did wrong (which parts that were suspected of copyedit) I can assure you that I'll fix it in less than a week.PaPa PaPaRoony

PaPa PaPaRoony Sorry, I am not certain if it is copyrighted which I why I've requested that an administrator look into it. If I am reading it correctly, our documentation at Wikipedia Commons says that French government texts are not in the public domain. It may take a few days for an admin to respond to the request, and the template should not be removed until they've cleared it. If there is a copyright violation it would have to be removed from the page history as well, so we really have to wait to hear back from them.SeraphWiki (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackwater 61 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Combat Zone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi I gave you a Barnstar for your Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven article. I'm creating the Frydag article, which is the aristocratic familty which Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven belongs, which is weird. I would never have known about this man, if I hadn't spoken to you. Proper synchronicity. Sorry for giving you a row earlier. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Afc Reviewing rationale for Draft:The Natural Daughter

Hi SeraphWiki, I saw your rationale for rejecting Draft:The Natural Daughter, which is unacceptable, in terms of process, and the fact it is a new editor. In the reviewing instructions, it explicity states at WP:AFCPURPOSE, The purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. The whole purpose of WP:AFC is to bring in articles, from new and established editors into the main space, where they can go through the process of turning them into full correct articles that satisfy WP:MOS and are notable, not to build shiny, correct new articles in afc, then pass them into mainspace. That is the purpose of mainspace. If they are new editors, the article can be structurally broken, but still be notable enough to pass Afd. For new editors the whole purpose of afc, is to cultivate them to create new articles within that process. Not to halt them at the door. for Natural Daughter article, which clearly notable, it would have taken 2 minutes to create a lede. Please reread the WP:NPP instructions. scope_creep (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I didn't decline that article, I left a comment that it needs a lede, which it does. I left a comment because I assumed the editor did not know and would be interested in writing better articles. I spend more time cleaning up the articles that have been accepted (which are full of citations to Wikipedia, external links, reference duplication and refs before periods, including typos and spelling errors) then I do accepting/declining articles. Your acceptances I noticed have been quite tidy, and I appreciated it. Others have been very messy. I certainly don't have to write a lede section for any draft or accept a draft that doesn't have one. If you want to write a lede, you are free to do that. You are also free to accept any drafts you choose. Don't come here and tell me to do it. I'm not a new page reviewer yet - NPP is more intense because you have to choose between rescue and deletion. AfC reviewers can and do decline articles for any number of reasons including custom reasons. I probably left a comment, because I did not think it was enough to decline, but I really think it's better for new editors to work on improving their own articles. That is how I learned - to tell you the truth, I didn't even get a plate of cookies, and I'm still here. AfC is not just a notability test, and I do cleanup and improve some of the drafts that I think will pass, but I'm pretty sure there is no rule that I'm responsible for everything at AfC - I do, however, appreciate your work improving and accepting this draft. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were a new page reviewer. Sorry. The article has been passed, as it was from a historical English womens writer and a well known, very well regarded book, I think. If I see an article which is notable, I tend to bring it across and improve it, which I dont mind doing. I see that not everybody wants to do that. I don't understand why. The whole purpose of afc, is more nuanced than just creating articles, it's to bring on and develop new editors. scope_creep (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't mind improving drafts and moving them to mainspace - not even really sure why I passed on this one as I do have an interest in literature but I'm glad another reviewer found it. SeraphWiki (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 10:14:06, 17 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nathan Wailes

• Nathan Wailes (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Greg Neimeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, you recently left feedback on my talk page about a wiki article I had submitted for an academic. My question is this: since Wikipedia has specific criteria for academics, how can I "make my case" when submitting an article that the subject of the article passes one or more of the criteria that are deemed sufficient to allow an academic to pass the notability test? In other words, how can I direct the reviewer's attention to a particular criterion and explain why the subject of the article passes that criterion?

Nathan Wailes (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nathan Wailes: Since I left the comment, you can tell me here on my talk page. SeraphWiki (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's enough citation count on google scholar that I'd accept. Independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Almost all of these references are to primary sources. is not too relevant for an academic as passing WP:NPROF means it'll survive an AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Ok, so should I just resubmit the article then? Or is there a different process when I have a particular reviewer who would accept it? Nathan Wailes (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Wailes I already did so; will accept. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I don't really like to use Google Scholar for this, so I'm glad you did it. If something has 258 cites - I go through the first 2 pages and everything looks good, but I don't have a lot of confidence they will all be good cites. It would be really helpful if we have access to something more consistent and reliable like Scopus.SeraphWiki (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not that reliable, but it's also used in AfDs so it doesn't really matter if it is.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note

I e-mailed your main account. I'm not sure if an alt. account receives notice so I just stopped by to let you know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

06:52:12, 15 January 2018 review of submission by KRRKim

• KRRKim (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MarkAny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear SeraphWiki,

Thank you very much for reviewing draft document Draft:MarkAny. I would like to ask reconsideration about it.

First of all, I should declare my interest on that company as I am currently working for it. However, the creation of this article was completely based on personal interest and not being paid nor ordered by company.

During my search on digital watermarking technologies, I found that MarkAny is not listed as a member company of Ultra HD Forum, where recently developing a forensic watermarking guideline. My first attempt was to add MarkAny within the member list, with proper link to the article. Then I found that MarkAny do not have an article, while other significant digital watermarking solution vendors, such as Verimatrix and Civolution already have it.

As I aware of neutral PoV in Wikipedia, I tried to be neutral as much as possible. I only cited publicly available news articles only to make the article neutral and verifiable, so I believe that this entry meets the Verifiability poilicy. About the notability, this company has enrolled in some major industrial alliances including Ultra HD Forum and Digital Watermarking Alliance, and both alliances are US-based and have international members. So I consider this company has considerable notability to English users of Wikipedia.

In addition to that, I also searched previously submitted articles about South Korean IT companies which business area and company size is similar to MarkAny. Then I have found some examples such as SoftCamp, ESTsoft, and Openmaru, and many others are found from Category:Software companies of South Korea and Category:Information technology companies of South Korea. This is another reason that I considered MarkAny has enough degree of notability to have an individual article on English Wikipedia.

Please consider my comments above and reconsider about the draft. If I need to improve the draft further to maintain neutral PoV, I would like to ask more specific comment on text in order to comply with.

I will not submit re-review at this moment and wait for your responses.

Many Thanks, KRRKim (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@KRRKim: I can't read Korean, so I will ask you - has the company received any negative attention or criticism in reliable sources? It is tagged as advert because it reads more like what you would see on a company's website than a neutral encyclopedia article. Most of what I have found googling the company are instructions on how to remove their software, with some users in Guardian Blog saying it was installed without their knowledge, but these English language sources would not be considered reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. I think the topic is most likely notable, but it is hard for me to say more since most of the reliable sources are in Korean. SeraphWiki (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: As the company provides DRM software, its end-user DRM agent program have frustrated some users by its sneak installation method. I found several internet articles written in Korean and English about that, but none of them are provided from reliable source/publisher. All I found was articles on personal blogs or bulletin boards; one that most likely to be considered is a short 2007 article from Guardian, which is probably what you have mentioned. About other negative aspects or criticism on this company, I have searched again in both English and Korean but failed to collect other than aforementioned ones.

I also would like to express that current news citations in the draft is to show the company's history as is, not to promote or advertise it. For example, in reference #5 (http://www.boannews.com/media/view.asp?idx=31174&kind=1) in Korean, MarkAny is mentioned along with other competitors in news article covering electronic document anti-forgery business. There are some Korean news articles dedicated to highlighting this company, but I have not cited them to maintain neutrality. The only exception is reference #1 (http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2001&no=279619), which is a award-winning notice of the company, but it was the only news source that I found for the company's founding history. KRRKim (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

KRRKim I have looked for better sources too and also can not find any that discuss this besides forums and the Guardian blog. After discussing the content of the Korean language sources, I would accept this draft because I think the company is notable (I believe there is an Auerbach book source also) - and the language is neutral based on the sources that are available.SeraphWiki (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: I tried to improve references. News titles and publisher names in Korean are now translated in English, and I have added three new English references. One is technical news from Publishers Weekly that introduces MarkAny as one of the Korean copyright security company, and two are member pages of the alliances that this company is enrolled. Please check the draft again. Thanks! KRRKim (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@KRRKim: I just checked it again and it looks fine but I can't accept it until the draft is resubmitted. SeraphWiki (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: Thank you for checking again the draft. I have resubmitted the draft. KRRKim (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: Thank you for accepting the draft and for your kind advice that helped improving the draft! KRRKim (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Conor Lamb

Hi. Would you be willing to work to get this article up to speed? The person is notable and may soon be a US congressman, so I think we should have an article ASAP. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Maybe, but I'm a bit busy right now. Has he already won an election? SeraphWiki (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No but he seems to be getting a lot of notable news coverage among the leftwing media. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD reverts

I realized this was a mistake - which is why in my revert - I left in the entire new comment (I copy-pasted it over) - I copy-pasted over the new text you added. I choose to do an undo both to let you know, and because it was easier to fix the two odd locations in which this was inserted that was (copy-pasting the large block of text was easy). Was surprised to see you reverted me, and then re-fixed. No biggie.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I just wanted it to be clear in the edit history that it was an unintentional error because I was using my trackpad (which is not very good), in case other editors looked through the history and thought I was altering other editors comments at AfD (because that would be a serious misconduct issue if it was deliberate) - sometimes editors/admins/arbs quickly look through edit summaries ora page history and get only a partial picture of the more detailed discussions that have taken place on talk/user pages. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I also wasn't sure if you thought it was a good faith mistake because the edit summary didn't say anything about it - which I think it should explicitly say reverting good faith error in a situation like this (where it is either a good faith error or vandalism/serious misconduct) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I could've been clearer (e.g. by adding "mistake" to my edit summary) - I'm less verbose (and with many more typos than my usual sloppy self) when editing via tablet - will keep in mind in future. My apologies - I was merely trying to correct this.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting revdel

When requesting revdel, please make sure to include the end revisionID as well (if appropriate); it saves the admins the hassle of figuring out when the content was removed. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do, I usually mark the edit summary COPYVIO but it's not a big deal to add the end revision to the template also, if it makes things easier.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:54:42, 23 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dgubitosa

• Dgubitosa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zoran Nikolin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have some questions regarding the Zoran Nikolin (karate) wikipedia page I am currently working on. The biographical portion of his page ultimately comes directly from him. I'm not sure how to get reliable sources about his upbringing. I would absolutely appreciate if you could help me by telling me specifically what would be needed to get the page published. Thank you so much for your time.

Dgubitosa (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dgubitosa: We would need independent sources. We can not use World Karate Confedaration as a source. May I ask what you mean by "ultimately comes directly from him"? SeraphWiki (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is the first and third paragraphs are from an interview I held with him myself. Also, I'm not sure why the World Karate Confederation doesn't count as a source, his name is on both results pages when you click on the WKC website. This is my first time submitting a wikipedia page for publishing so apologies for using the wrong way to respond/edit.

Request on 18:02:16, 16 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Raricrod

• Raricrod (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Corrado Rizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Raricrod (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your review please can you explain me better what I can find to support the creation of the page corrado rizza? i don't understand also what means mirror thanks for your help--Raricrod (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is cited to a copy of Italian Wikipedia. SeraphWiki (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

i'm very very sorry but i don't understand which is the italian copy? can we fix the problem? thanks--Raricrod (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You have in the infobox http://www.corradorizza.it/ as his official website, which according to the licensing information is a mirror of his Italian wikipedia article, and it appears to be the source for more or less the entire discography. Whatever the source for the discography is, you will want to identify it in the article. Additionally there should not be any external links to Wikipedia itself, which you have one in your external links section. Links to other Wikipedia articles should be added to a See Also section. After you have fixed these issues, you can resubmit the article and another reviewer will review it. Looking over it for notability I can only comment on the English sources - there are at least two interviews which can't be used for notability, but I can't help you beyond that because I don't read Italian. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I really thank you and I will try to do my best to fix the problem --Raricrod (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

hi i did few changes and i add some interview in english i hope i did the right job thanks for your help --Raricrod (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gråen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gråen. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Czechland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czechland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

10:44:58, 25 January 2018 review of submission by CallumAttryde

• CallumAttryde (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Apama (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SeraphWiki,

Thank you for reviewing my original submission. I hope you don't mind me contacting you like this, but I have made several revisions to it since to address your concerns, namely around the notability of the subject. Firstly, I'd like to point out that Intel is an separate, independent entity from SoftwareAG; they choose their benchmark tests environments based on indicativeness rather than business relationships. Additionally, I'd like to note that the industry analysts (Forrester, Gartner and Bloor) who have regularly cited Apama as the market leader in its space (references in article) are some of the most respected and referenced today. Furthermore, I have added references to some of the many patents stemming from the development of Apama, as well as citations in published researched material and literature.

Finally (and probably less importantly but still worth mentioning), Apama has many unlinked references across Wikipedia already: here, here, here, here, and even twice here. I hope these changes bring the article up to a quality sufficient for Wikipedia

Regards, Callum

CallumAttryde (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am no longer reviewing drafts, you will have to resubmit and another reviewer will work with you.SeraphWiki (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:20:11, 11 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sudhanambudiri

• Sudhanambudiri (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vaidyaratnam Triprangode Moossad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is declined for want of independent secondary sources (A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources). As independent secondary sources, I have included one news item appeared in The Hindu, which is a reputed newspaper in India, authored by one Sudha Nambudiri, after doing a lot of research (I am not the person. I just coined the name as my login name for Wikipedia.). I have also included the articles appeared in the Website of the Keraleeya Ayurveda Samajam. Both these are readily verifiable. A third one is also provided, which is a recent book published in malayalam language, authored by one Mr.Narayanan. The person mentioned in the article is the first of the three holders of Vaidyaratnam title in the state of Kerala, India, during the British Rule. The other two title holders can be seen in Wikipedia; therefore it will be good to include the first one also. Since he lived more than 100 years ago not many references are available now. To upload in Wikipedia was an effort to preserve the information available on the person for posterity.

Sudhanambudiri (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It was declined because those sources are not enough to establish notability. No sources are given for the images so their licenses can't be verified. Additionally the article does not follow MOS:LAYOUT. Please review this before resubmitting the draft.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The other sources I could find are all old documents in local language and therefore are not readily verifiable. Moreover, I have noticed that the article on Vaidyaratnam P. S. Warrier, who was the third and last of the three Vaidyaratnas of Kerala, has quoted only four references, three of them being websites and one book. Regarding the images, in my efforts to write the article, I had personally accessed the originals of the images used in the article, which are available with the descendants of Mr.T.P.Moossad. The images were made by myself, on my own devices. There are no copyrights on these images. This I had made clear on the Wikimedia Commons page while uploading the images. Article layout style is being modified for re-submission. Sudhanambudiri (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the images I tagged them as derivative works without a source. The original images may still be copyrighted. It is not enough to simply say they are not copyrighted. The copyright status needs to be verified, for that we usually need to know who took the picture and what year it was taken and whether it has previously been published. I would suggest following up at Commons. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This was followed up at Commons and the images have been retained at Commons. I hope the article will be accepted now. Sudhanambudiri (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Republic_(crowdfunding_platform)

Hello SeraphWiki.

First of all, thank you for your review. I understand that despite the severe backlog that AfC is facing, and despite my COI in trying to create the article, you have read Draft:Republic_(crowdfunding_platform) thoroughly to make the comment.

I have reviewed the draft and added one new source. I believe that Republic does pass the requirements for notability with the following sources:

• Peer-reviewed scholarly articles:
  • Green, Joseph; Coyle, John (August 25, 2016). "Crowdfunding and the Not-So-Safe SAFE". Virginia Law Review Online. Rochester, NY. 168. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2830213
  • From University of Chicago - Booth: Abrams, Eliot (January 19, 2017). "Securities Crowdfunding: More than Family, Friends, and Fools?". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.290221
  • From HEC Paris and MIT: Etienne, Alain; Geha, Andre (May 12, 2017). The development of the AngelList online syndication model in equity crowdfunding and its effects on venture capitalism and the seed funding industry (PhD). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2017-11-14.
• News and media:
  • Henri, Zoe (July 18, 2016). "Why a Group of AngelList and Uber Expats Launched This New Crowdfunding Website". Inc. Retrieved 2017-11-06.
  • Ghahramani, Adam (December 18, 2016). "A first-time investor's guide to equity crowdfunding | VentureBeat". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2017-11-06.
  • Neiss, Sherwood (May 16, 2017). "Equity crowdfunding is 1 year old today, Wefunder is top platform | VentureBeat". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  • Dier-Scalise, Christopher (October 16, 2017). "Republic Breaks The Venture Capital Mold With Equity Crowdfunding". Benzinga. Retrieved 2018-01-13.

Also, I have one question regarding the inclusion of [Crowdfund Insider] article. The drawbacks of the site are: it's independent, it's mostly routine reporting, and it rarely includes in-depth discussion. The strengths are: it's subjected to fact-checking, it's up to date, and it covers the bulk of developments in crowdfunding. I believe that for a field as new as equity crowdfunding, independent sites like this are valuable - just like Coindesk was to the development of cryptocurrency in its early days. I have tried not including the bulk of sources from this site due to my confusion. Question: should I include these sources, or should I leave them out to leave more space for the stronger sources?

I'll be looking forward to your answer. Again, thanks for your time.

Regards, Vinhloc30796 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Vinhloc30796 Looking through some of the articles you've listed, such as the Virginia Law Review article it seems to be about Crowdfunding and SAFE in general. WP:NORG would require indepth sources about the particular company. I see a TechCrunch article about Roomi, that does not seem to mention this company at all. I don't think Benzinga reporting about its own summit can be considered a secondary source. The draft is cited to this Dallas Business Journal] article about solar panels and a company named Geostellar with no mention of Republic. As a source for the statement in the article "Their crowdfunding campaign with Republic closed with $325,308 on October 11th, 2017, among the largest five campaigns on the platform." it fails verification. The Venturebeat article has a passing mention, but not enough for notability.SeraphWiki (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki Thank you so much for your response. It is really informative and I do agree that the articles surrounding Roomi, Geostellar, and other clients of Republic cannot be used to establish notability. The article on Venture Beat is indeed a passing mention. The article on Benzinga is indeed not neutral as a source. However, I still believe that the remaining articles can be used to establish notability. Although all of the three scholarly articles (for lack of a better term) don't focus on Republic as their sole subject and focus instead on equity crowdfunding and investment, they do in fact discuss Republic at length and in its relationship with equity crowdfunding. In other words, I believe Republic - among with other platforms like Wefunder and Start Engine - is at the forefront of equity crowdfunding, and thus notable.

On the media side, there is still the article of Zoe Henri on Inc discussing Republic at length. I have also added this article on Coindesk, not dedicating to solely Republic, but still discussed Republic Crypto more in-depth than merely a passing mention. There is also the question regarding the inclusion of Crowdfund Insider articles - many Wikipedia articles about crowdfunding do cite Crowdfund Insider as a source.

Thank you again for the careful, patient, and helpful answer you've given. Best regards. Vinhloc30796 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki I'm writing this to follow-up on my last comments: with those articles, and for those reasons, is Republic notable?. I do understand that you will be extremely busy and backlogged, and I would love to hear your thoughts when you have time. Wish all goes well for you. Sincerely. Vinhloc30796 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

How to improve A MAZE. article?

Hi Seraph Wiki, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and want to write a article on A MAZE., which is an organisation in Berlin that creates eponymous video game festivals to support the indie games community. I've worked on improving the draft to get it accepted but I'm still being told that the draft needs to "improve its sourcing" and that we need "further discussion" on A MAZE. I'd like to understand what the reasoning is for the draft being rejected again. There are a number of other published Wiki articles about far more obscure video games festivals out there in Switzerland and the like, so I don't understand why A MAZE. still isn't notable enough. Full disclosure: I used to be a volunteer for them. Would appreciate some guidance on this, thanks! Krysoberyl (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

20:17:27, 23 January 2018 review of submission by Golden tamarin

• Golden tamarin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BlueVine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SeraphWiki, I've been working on this page for some time. I had a much more basic draft before, but then it was declined because I didn't show the subject's notability. So, I added some points/awards in to show why BlueVine is notable (it was one of the first FinTech companies of its kinda and is one of the largest now). Was there a particular phrase or part that struck you as advertisement-like?

Golden tamarin (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Golden tamarin: The total amount of financing secured (over $100 million dollars according to bizjournals) suggests the company is notable, but for me the issue was that the article doesn't have any content that is not promoting the company or its services. I've looked through the sources in more detail and I think it most likely is notable, but the article should be more than an advertisement for a company. Some background information on what BlueVine actually does and the impact it has had on financial lending would help assert notability in the article - for example the article says BlueVine's offering is based on traditional factoring, a lending practice that dates back thousands of years. It's one of several disrupters in the industry, which include Fundbox and C2FO, that offer factoring to small business owners through a simplified online process. - expanding this to be neutral and encyclopedic, in my view would help assert the company's notability - removing opaque language like "disrupters" and neutrally expanding on what the "simplified online process" is and what factoring is/why it is important - I have found some sources, mostly books from academic publishers, which could help add some neutral encyclopedic content to the article. I have found a few: [1] [2] [3] [4] SeraphWiki (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SeraphWiki, this is the most helpful response I've gotten so far! I'll keep working on it. Golden tamarin (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki I updated the article again and resubmitted for review :) Golden tamarin (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Belarus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mori Masaki (manga artist)

Hi, Seraph! I've been having trouble improving my draft for submission to AfC, and I wanted to ask for some guidance.

The draft was rejected for promotional language and poor sourcing. Since most information about Mori Masaki is in Japanese on Japanese sites, it's difficult for me to expand my range of sources. However, there is a full article on Mori Masaki here: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E5%AE%88, and I think translating information from that page could resolve the sourcing issue. I'm not capable of doing a good translation, so I've added a translation tag to the top of the page instead.

I'm still unclear on how to improve the promotional language problem. I've reworded and condensed the article further, but the changes aren't substantial. Could you give me some advice on what I should fix? Ragingcoffeestainedotaku (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingcoffeestainedotaku (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize you were no longer reviewing drafts. I'll resubmit my changes and rewrite from there. Ragingcoffeestainedotaku (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

18:42:35, 9 February 2018 review of submission by JosephineYu

• JosephineYu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ann Kaplan Mulholland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SeraphWiki, the career section you mentioned is revised, please review at your convenience. Thanks! JosephineYu (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Morlachs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Morlachs. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appeasement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek royal family

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek royal family. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Banderites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Banderites. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robin Hood

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robin Hood. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

22:54:07, 12 February 2018 review of submission by Dynara23

• Dynara23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Carmilla Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, It is not an article that I have created, but I wonder why you choose to decline the submission of Draft:The Carmilla Movie as not notable. It was shown in cinema, television and on video on demand. Furthermore there is lots of coverage in international media. There are English, German, Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese... articles about the movie. The film already has a German (The Carmilla Movie) and a French (Carmilla (film, 2017)) Wikipedia article. Anyway I have added lots of new text and references about the movie (here). I think it should be notable. Dynara23 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know: You do not have to do anything anymore about this article. Since you were not editing with this account anymore since 26th of January and I did not know if or when you come back, I just resubmitted the movie again and it was accepted. Anyway thanks for your effort. Have a nice weekend. --Dynara23 (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Medri Bahri

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Medri Bahri. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyandry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 04:47:42, 26 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ginarogoto

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

Hi, I submitted document, that was accepted by Wikipedia, to address the copyright issues of the Louis Hernandez Jr. article. It has been resubmitted, few weeks ago. How long should I wait to get a feedback now? Thank you.

Ginarogoto (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Draft:Sanjana_Sanghi

I resolved the issues regarding the article Draft:Sanjana_Sanghi. please review this article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dany296 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, SeraphWiki.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syria. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air France Flight 5672

@SeraphWiki: I've recently made a new temporary page for the Air France Flight 5672, which had a copyrights problems a few weeks ago. I would like my article to be checked for its content. Let me know if there are any mistakes or if you need a clarification from me. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

PaPa PaPaRoony Still no answer on that? I requested the investigation because there was some indication that French government sources might be copyrighted based on c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France and I don't know how we handle that here on English wiki, but this was months ago ... I thought there would be an answer by now...maybe Primefac can advise? SeraphWiki (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of English monarchs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello SeraphWiki. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Horst-Wessel-Lied

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horst-Wessel-Lied. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Page MIMI ELSA nominated for Deletion.

So I just realized my recent draft that was moved to the article space has been nominated for deletion by you. The reasons you based that argument on aren't that viable. Africa as a continent, and for that matter Ghana, isn't as developed a country to have major outlets, news tracking magazines, online news centers. What we have is the Radio & TV networks and blogs constantly feeding the public with reliable information. Is there an Artist Page in Africa which isn't dominated by blogs? No. It's impossible. That's where all our news are from. Ghana for example doesn't have a national chart. Top songs are recorded from number of air plays and community plays. The first reference on the page, is a perfect example of music making charts in Ghana.

As far as I know there is no exception to the WP:RS policy. Sometimes editors are more flexible and require more sourcing for films or music from Western countries. In either case, whether or not the article is deleted will depend on the consensus at AfD and you should make your arguments there.SeraphWiki (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anatolia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD mimi Elsa

Greetings. I mentioned you in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIMI ELSA, and not very kindly. Have a look, please. Tapered (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anatolia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)