User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/July

23:04:46, 26 June 2017 review of submission by Asetrinka

• Asetrinka (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fyber (programmatic video Supply Side Platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why this article fails to meet the notability standards of wikipedia. There are references from numerous significant and reliable industry publications such as VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and AdExchanger. In which aspects specifically of the notability standards does this article fall short? I'd like to know so I can get a better idea for how to fix it, because as of right now I'm not sure what the problematic parts of the article are. Thank you

Sorry could I please get a response on this? wondering if it slipped of your radar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asetrinka (talk • contribs) 22:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Asetrinka, I have reviewed the draft and have recieved a second opinion on it. It is far too promotional and "that's considering how some of the closures are tech publications servicing that industry and its press releases, therefore not the needed coverage unfortunately". Maybe see if you can find additional news coverage or things of that nature? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:19:25, 1 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nagaraj Kolara

• Nagaraj Kolara (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sanchari Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer, I am little confused with review comments given. Is it that the references provided is not enough and have to provide more sources or the way the references created is not matching standards? Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And forgot to mention that this is my first article. Please help me to succeed.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagaraj Kolara (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

don't forget to sign your comments, @Nagaraj Kolara:! ;) -🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 18:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nagaraj Kolara: I took another look at the draft and it is due to the fact that the majority of the draft is entirely unsourced (see WP:CITE and Help:Referencing for beginners). Hopefully this helped to explain and I am sorry that you were confused by this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw your notice about how this is your first article, in that case, please also review WP:Your first article as it may have some helpful resources in it. Checking out the Teahouse might also be a good idea as they can also help to answer your questions, as can any administrator or reviewer/experienced editor. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

10:09:14, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Prem Kumar Chanda

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

@Prem Kumar Chanda: You sent a blank message, what were you trying to say? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I have submitted a page for review but was declined with the following message from reviewer:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Could you please help and check on the same and let me know what needs to be done?

User:Prem_Kumar_Chanda/sandbox

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem Kumar Chanda (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Prem Kumar Chanda: I have added citation needed templates to the draft to help you identify some areas and have left an AfC comment on the draft stating that it needs more independent sources. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

21:11:26, 29 June 2017 review of submission by LustExe

• LustExe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arizona State Level Trauma Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I appreciate the ability to send you an electronic letter to discuss some things. I am the writer of this article. I would like to know why this article was rejected for "Simply appears to be a directory", it is much more than that. I work for a major hospital company, and this has actually become a good use for fellow employees in my chain of my place of work while it was in the editing stage. I created this article because the only information on this was a single document issued by the State of Arizona, which contained spelling and grammar errors, as well as incorrect information including addresses. Upon researching this topic, this was a frequent issue while attempting to establish which hospital in a mapping area is readily available to patients upon which company they prefer and the level of trauma you choose to visit. In Arizona, primarily the Valley (Phoenix Area) and Tucson, the major companies are Banner Health, Dignity Health, Abrazo, and Honor Health. These are for profit and non profit and accept certain insurances for surgery or even payment coverage for emergency care. If a patient wants to discover where they would like to go for treatment, there is absolutely no correct information present for the patient to research from while online. There is currently no information on this topic visible on the internet. I did have the hospitals linked so patients can gain more information. Quite a few of these hospitals do not have Wiki pages, however I am drafting for those missing Wikipedia facilities.

This has not only been a discussion within the work place, but the citizens in the State of Arizona have a right to have some form of knowledge on where they choose to seek treatment from in their local area. In Arizona, quite a few people are specific on which chain of hospital they seek treatment from. For example, many people choose Dignity Health over Honor Health because of insurance reasons. However, a person may choose to visit a Banner Health chain over a Dignity Health because of the ability to take your child into the treatment room with you, while Dignity is highly against this.

My final reason why this should be allowed published is because if you research California Trauma Levels, they have a page within Wikipedia. Which is not only outdated by the way, but is actually a legitimate directory. The page I provided had more information and locations of these facilities, and even their renewal years if a patient is skeptical. While quite a few of these facilities are located outside of the website, outside links, it is simply because there is no page dedicated to the hospital facility. I was going to attempt to create Wikipedia pages on the unlisted hospitals as the time readily becomes available for me.

In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude for this website and the use it provides, however I cannot stress enough how this is not just a directory. This is important information on where a patient can seek treatment based on the level of care that they are requiring. Short example, a patient accidentally slips and falls and may have bleeding on the brain. The patient will most likely go to the nearest hospital, which will waste precious time sending the patient to a level 1 trauma center. If a patient is aware what specifically is a level 1, they can rush straight there, which is actually pretty local, and seek treatment at the location they visit if they indeed have a level one brain injury.

Thank you for reviewing this, I hope this finds you well. Thank you kindly for allowing me to send you a message, I hope you are able to reconsider. Like I mentioned before, this is more than just a directory, this is a guide for patients as well as hospital staff. I currently am an employee for one of these chains, and it has been circulated around my workplace for a while now so the staff can learn for not only themselves, but their families as well. It is useful information for people to have on where to seek treatment when something unfortunate happens.

Kind regards and thank you,

Alyx Hannigan

@LustExe: Sorry for the delay in my response. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and may not be the right website to specialize in presenting residents of a particular region (ie Arizona) what medical treatment options they have – we merely represent knowledge that already exists in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If such independent, reliable sources do not exist, then unfortunately Wikipedia cannot include the topic until such sources do exist.

Also, the article needs to be rewritten or restructured so that it is written in neutral prose. Attention should be focused on what those independent, reliable sources have said about it, not what the organization has written about itself. Avoid simply listing the various facilities and their addresses, and talk about, perhaps, their history. Hopefully this helps shed some light on the situation. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know and I encourage you to check out WP:Your first article as well as the Teahouse (they can also answer any questions you may have). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey User:LustExe. The Wikimedia movement contains a family of websites. This one is in an encyclopedic style.

Our sister site known as Wikiversity would be a great place for this :-) Let me know if you need help moving it over there. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

coach

I coached Jacob liddle in Wadalba community school and contined coaching for the past 5 years and I want to get a job coaching and letting everyone know I coach him that's why I changed it so they know who coached him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettmarlow2 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brettmarlow2: While that may very well be true, without a reliable source to back up the claim, the revert was/is justified and would probably have been done by another editor, had I not done it myself. Since you are a new user, I would recommend reviewing WP:CITE and WP:ILC as they contain useful information on referencing, as does Help:Referencing for beginners. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can prove it on my facebook side and I'm best friends with Jacob Liddle I talk to him every night I have the proof I coach him if u want proof message Jacob of facebook he will tell u I am the former coach of his — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettmarlow2 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brettmarlow2: While that may very well be true, please review the WikiLinks I linked above as they should help clarify what a reliable source is, which Facebook (generally) is not. Major news coverage is typically required that is independent of the subject (secondary sources). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I APPRECIATE YOUR DIECTION

Thanks for your constructive critique and direction. I am new and looking foward to doing more to help the wiki community and the people who deserve to be known. Continually direct me till i become better. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmohPoku (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought

You know, you don't have to ping me every time you use the OTHERSTUFF argument; you're totally welcome to copy or change or modify the original message however you like :) Primefac (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Will do. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

11:39:29, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Coverdale1234

• Coverdale1234 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Uli Weber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello SandDoctor Could you please let me know which references are causing the issue. Thank you

@Coverdale1234: Hi there, please review the AfC comment that I left on the draft while declining the draft you are referring to, I detailed it in there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

18:22:17, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Nagaraj Kolara

• Nagaraj Kolara (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sanchari Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer, can I source articles published in leading news papers of regional language (non-English)? And can I source a web link to which newspaper article scanned images are stored/displayed? because, unable to find old articles those are published in English papers. It appears, those are archived.

@Nagaraj Kolara: As long as they are notable, you certainly can, it just might slow down the review process a bit for that particular draft. What sort of website would the scanned images be stored/displayed on? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Alroy

Hello, SandDoctor. I noticed that you recently declined the above-named draft with an edit summary that cited WP:BLP. But the subject of the draft is a book, written by a long-dead author about an even-longer-dead historical figure. Perhaps you intended your decline "reason" to be insufficient sourcing, and not any BLP violation. But I fail to see exactly what material in the draft requires additional sourcing. I'm inclined to accept the draft, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. Your thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed my decline notices and accepted the draft. My bad. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Branko Petranovic

Thank you for reviewing this article and for your edit. However, for insisting on minimum inline citations, I am not sure what minimum you have in mind. From here I read:

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Type of statement	Policy requiring inline citation
Direct quotations	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons	Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The last one in the table above is not applicable because B. Petranovic died. Could you, please, read the draft and tell me where I should add more inline citations? Thank you.--109.92.84.160 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@109.92.84.160: I have added citation needed templates to the draft to help elaborate on what I meant. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I still do not understand you. Wikipedia says: Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Why you are requesting huge number of inline citations? Almost for each sentence in some paragraphs? The references as given are verifying the text above in the article. It's easy to verify it if you have access to the references.--109.92.84.160 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The WikiXocolatl Custom Award

The WikiXocolatl Custom Award For new page patrolling. Keep it up! —PaleoNeonate - 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon

On 15 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Rolling Stones' concert in Havana was the first foreign rock concert to take place in Cuba and was attended by an estimated 500,000 people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fiorenzo request

(For anyone reading this and wondering, they are referring to Draft:Fiorenzo Metalli) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Egr. Wikipedia, All player and manager career dates are available and verifiable at the FIGC technical sector of COVERCIANO (FI) Italy Thank you Distinguished Fiorenzo METALLI I send certificates confirming my sport activity Egr. Wikipedia, Tutte le date della carriera da giocatore e da allenatore sono disponibili e verificabili presso la FIGC settore tecnico di COVERCIANO ( FI ) Italia È importante per me che venga pubblicata la mia carriera sportiva per avere possibilità di andare a lavorare come allenatore all'estero. Grazie Confido nella vostra comprensione Distinti saluti Fiorenzo METALLI

@Fiorenzometalli: Please note that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Italian Wikipedia. I have run your response through Google Translate and so have a rough idea what you meant. Please note that Wikipedia is not a webhost and, therefore, that the use you just stated is not one you should pursue. Significant coverage from notable sources is what demonstrates the notability of an article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Egr. Wikipedia,I send the certifications of the companies where I played and trained in my career as a player and trainer. All this is available at the FIGC technical sector in Coverciano (FI) ITALY.I hope it is satisfactory to your requests.Best regards FIORENZO METALLI

@Fiorenzometalli: I have since re-instated the content that you removed from my talk page. While I appreciate you putting it in English, please do not remove content from my talk page, especially my responses/messages written by others. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have sent all the original certificates of football companies attesting to my traceability and truthfulness.

Sent to wiki@wikipedia.org and info-en@wikimedia.org

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiorenzometalli (talk • contribs) 11:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:REFSTART we don't need you to send anything anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

03:43:20, 5 July 2017 review of submission by Nagaraj Kolara

• Nagaraj Kolara (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sanchari Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer, two things:

1. There are few articles published in leading regional language newspapers. Those are still available on Web. I can create references to those directly. The regional language is "Kannada". This is the scheduled, administrative official language of a state in India. More than 50 million people talk this language. "Kannada" has a wiki page. You can read more if you want.

2. There are some article those were published in leading English news papers but those are no more available on Web. Because they are archived/removed. We have preserved those and published on our site https://sanchaaritheatru.wordpress.com. I can create references linking to these sources.

Please let me know if both are allowed.

Thanks.

Hi Nagaraj Kolara. I'm Mz7, a friendly "talk page stalker" of TheSandDoctor, your draft's reviewer. Regarding your first question, although we prefer English sources where possible, you are indeed allowed to cite sources that are not in English (e.g. Kannada) as long as the sources themselves are reliable. Regarding your second question, it is also okay for your to cite sources that are no longer available on the Web. For these sources, provide us with as much bibliographic material as you can: e.g. the title and author of the article, the name of the newspaper, the publisher of the newspaper, the date/number of the issue that included the article.

I suppose you can point us to copies of those sources on your WordPress website to help us identify whether these sources are sufficient to establish the notability of the subject, but unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to cite those directly for a couple of reasons. Firstly, your website is a personal WordPress blog, and anybody on the Internet can create such a website and upload material to it without any editorial oversight. As a result, it is difficult for us to evaluate the reliability of your reproductions. Secondly, it may be a violation of copyright to rehost the articles without the permission of the copyright holder, and Wikipedia's copyrights policy does not allow us to link to websites that may host copyright-infringing content.

As a side note, your draft currently contains a lot of promotional language, with subjective statements like "engrave a special place for itself in Kannada theatre with its unique experiments". Instead, stick to the facts. Write "Sanchari Theatre conducts annual theatre workshops for young theatre enthusiasts" instead of "Sanchari Theatre is obliging the dreams of many young theatre enthusiasts by conducting theatre workshops every year". Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means for advertising or promotion, and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me or TheSandDoctor know if you are confused or have any further questions. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

11:47:40, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Zackraab107

• Zackraab107 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:James Allen (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi TheSandDoctor, I saw that you declined my article submission with the reason: the content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Can you please provide me with more of detailed explanation why that was the reason the submission was declined? I was sure there were enough sources and all of the claims were backed up by a source that was correctly listed as a footnote. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackraab107 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zackraab107: I have added some citation needed templates to the draft that should hopefully assist. I have also updated the decline reasoning as, upon re-reading it, parts of it seemed to read like an advertisement/promotional. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for the quick response! I also appreciate the citation needed templates you added and I will look into adjusting the article in those spots accordingly. With regard to the change in disapproval, would it be possible to specify with a bit more detail which parts specifically made you change your mind and the disapproval reasoning? Would adding citations where you specified be the fix that's necessary or is it something else that I am missing? Thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. Zackraab107 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zackraab107: You are welcome! I try to respond to messages as quickly as possible once I have gathered adequate information to respond. What I was mainly referring to was the History section of the draft. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Hi again, sorry for the delay over the weekend. I have been adjusting and adding more references for the article, per your recommendations. Two questions - when I save changes to the updated article, will you review it again? Also, is there a way to add a logo while the article is still a draft? From what I read, a logo is only able to be added after the fact when the article has gone live. Is that correct? Thanks again! Zackraab107 (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zackraab107: If you would like me to review it once you think it is ready or to give you more suggestions, please do let me know and I will happily do so/take another look at it. I am not 100% sure regarding your second question but my guess is that logos should be added after a draft has been published/accepted. Hopefully this helps answer your questions. As always, if you have any more, feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Appreciate all the help. I will work on adding the logo after, as I figured that's how it works. I saved all the changes made in the past couple of days, following your instructions and citation guidelines as best I could. I tweaked the "History" section so it doesn't sound promotional anymore and I added more sources all throughout the article as additional support. I used similar company's approved articles (Blue Nile (company), Brilliant Earth, Ritani, and Robbins Brothers) as guides for writing the James Allen page thoughout this process - I figured that was a smart way to approach it. If you could please look it over again, I'd appreciate it. If it's good enough now for approval, that would be fantastic. If it's still not, every suggestion you can give is very helpful! Thanks. Zackraab107 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Hi, sorry to bother, but just wondering if saw my previous message. Thanks. Zackraab107 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I knew that some sweets would be appreciated by you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you saw the message at the top of my talk page, eh? [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

15:52:17, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Fjamal89

• Fjamal89 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Fjamal89/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted my wikipedia draft page a week ago for review but unfortunately it was declined because it was not referenced properly. I am just wondering whats wrong with the 2 references which I have referenced.Fjamal89 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fjamal89, the reason your references are not acceptable is because they are from the company itself. As PRIMARY sources, these are strongly discouraged as references and do nothing for demonstrating notability. Wikipedia pages require reliable sources that are not directly connected to the subject. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks for the feedback. We are a startup and only our website is the main source of content at this moment. We don't have any single outside references to use as a reference. Let me know if there is anything I can do in order to use our company website as a reference. Fjamal89 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fjamal89, if your website is currently the only place that actually talks about you, then it sounds like it's simply too soon for Wikipedia to have an article about the company. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Our startup was opened around a year ago. I am wondering if I make a blog on WordPress and used it as a reference ? Would it be a good idea ?

Also, in majority of the wikipedia pages I see references from news link(BBC, CNN etc). In our case, we don't have any news link published in any media. Can we use any other references apart from any news link ?

At last, Can you forward me some startup company wikipedia pages ? In that way I will get little bit more idea about startup company wikipedia pages Fjamal89 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fjamal89, I really hate to break it to you, but you're describing a textbook example of a company that doesn't meet the Golden Rule. If you start a blog (never mind that blogs aren't considered reliable sources), and you are directly connected to the company, then it's not an independent source. We need sources like BBC, CNN, etc. If you don't have any, then it's just not possible to have a page yet. We don't really have "startup company Wikipedia pages" because 99% of startups have the same issue you're experiencing - no reliable coverage in independent sources. By the time notability is demonstrated for them, they are no longer a "startup". Primefac (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB use

Hey, just wanted to let you know that this sort of edit with AWB is generally discouraged. If the only things you're changing are whitespace, then that page should be skipped (see the skip options in the "Skip" tab). Primefac (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for letting me know, I thought that you had previously brought this up to me back in the beginning of June (when the AWB edits were), could be my memory deceiving me though. Thanks regardless. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I probably did! I totally misread "1 June" as "1 July" and thought you had just done it recently. My mistake! I've been doing that all week for some reason. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem! I do similar from time to time Primefac. I am glad that that is now cleared up. I am just curious, how did you find that edit though, considering it was made over a month ago and I have probably made hundred since? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I was actually looking at someone else's edits, saw the AWB flag, and got curious. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense Primefac, basically by fluke. Any how, I was wondering, do you know what is up with STiki? I can't do a single revert through it without it crashing and blaming Wikimedia. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Never used it, so I wouldn't have any idea. I'd ask at its talk page. By the way, I watch your talk, so you don't have to ping me here Primefac (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

09:21:18, 8 July 2017 review of submission by Schemster

• Schemster (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wolf Hamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Sanddoctor. I see that my draft on artist Wolf Hamm was reclined due to a lack of references. please let me know which part of the text you mean. The biographical part? Wolf Hamm is still alive and you can find his biography on his website, which is linked on the page. Same with the listed exhibitions. I am a bit helpless in this case. The article went through with the same list of references on the German Wikipedia without problems. I really appreaciate your help with this. Thanks and best wishes Sebastian --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schemster (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schemster: Sorry for the delay in my response, the draft appears to be under-sourced (see WP:Your first article, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and Help:Referencing for beginners). SwisterTwister left a comment on the draft as well that is worth viewing here and I also agree with it. Hopefully this helps somewhat. If you have any questions, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

08:25:02, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Vijayclicker93

• Vijayclicker93 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vikky Varun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have corrected the article reference links & i have edited the content he is my frnd we are submitting facebook page for verification so i request you to kindly re review & approve

True Lies

I'm a bit confused by this edit, which credits some random person as a director to a famous James Cameron film. Looking at Cameron Brown (game director), it seems this person had some kind of involvement in a tie-in True Lies video game, but this is completely irrelevant to the credits listed in the film infobox, which is only for the crew of the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: My sincerest apologies and thank you for reverting that edit. Somehow I did not notice the film info box and added it as it was WikiLinked (incorrect WikiLink, which has now been resolved). This is my first mistake of that sort and I am not entirely sure how I missed that. Thanks for reverting and I apologize. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've probably done stranger things when I was tired. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

22:10:04, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Dff1978

• Dff1978 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Open Research Clouds Declaration (ORCD) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are working with various tech publications to get some media articles out, do they need to be by big newspapers or will other publications like OpenSource Foundation websites and the like count against the golden rule?

Also, is there specific content.

As you will have seen we have referenced some of the history behind Open Compute and Open Data, how much more scholarly research should we add to the references?

Any other advice greatly appreciated.

@Dff1978: Could you please give an example of "OpenSource Foundation websites"? Also, big news publications are always a good thing to have, but they cannot simply be reposting PR statements. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-review of the submitted Wikipedia page, Communication Research Reports

I greatly appreciated your review of my initial submission for Communication Research Reports. You commented that the page was "Most likely notable, but please add addition independent references" and to this end I added additional information from the American Library Association on the journal's status, as well as more information on our founding editor, now deceased.

Notably, I am hoping to over the next months, greatly expand the page with the help of some colleagues willing to fill in the journal's history, but I had hoped to get the initial effort approved to show them some progress. I was wondering if you could comment to see if my additional references were independent enough, or if you would have advice on the sort of references that you were looking for (or if the additions I've made were enough to provide additional independent citation).

Thanks very much, in advance. =) Bowmanspartan (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

my article: Thomas Jenuwein

Hello TheSandDoctor,

I have a question regarding my article "Thomas Jenuwein" that I sent (after adding references as required) on July 6 and ... I did not get any feedback since. Actually I am kind of lost, because I don't know if I still have to wait or what else to do. Could you please be so kind to help me out here? Thank you in advance for your time and best regards from Germany!

Marcela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcela Mare (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marcela Mare: I have added some {{citation needed}} templates to the draft in areas that could use inline citations. Please review Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITE. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon, TheSandDoctor!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Done

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyndago

All of my sources are primary sources, as they have been cited from the cyndago members themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyndago76.174.35.70 (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@76.174.35.70: As indicated in the multiple decline notices on the draft, that is actually a major issue. Secondary sources are required. Having strictly primary sources is a significant issue. Please review WP:RS, WP:Your first article, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

BUt wouldn't a source from the actual person be better than another person's views and/or opinions/bias?76.174.35.70 (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@76.174.35.70: I didn't mean to imply that primary sources should not be included, merely that they do not demonstrate notability. @Primefac: could you weigh in here possibly? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason primary sources are discouraged, and do nothing for notability, is because it's just the subject talking about themselves. I may think I'm the greatest widget maker in the world, and I may tell everyone who bothers to listen (via interviews, blogs, YouTube videos, etc) that I'm the greatest widget maker in the world, but until someone else says "Primefac is a pretty good widget maker, let's write a story!" then it's all hot air. This is why we need secondary and tertiary sources, because it has shown that people have "taken note" of the subject. Primefac (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, i resubmitted it with more secondary sources76.174.35.70 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you give me examples?

Hi, it is regarding the draft of Shahaf Shabtai, you suggested something that I do not get, please help me. I think I did fine, please give me examples of how you want me to fix it. Nmalka (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nmalka: Please review WP:MINREF, WP:CITE, Help:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Your first article. I have added {{citation needed}} (which display as ) templates in some spots that could use sourcing within the draft. Hopefully this helps you get started. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Toast sandwich

DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Doctor to Doctor, but to beach their own.

Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DoctorWho42! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

12:36:47, 4 July 2017 review of submission by Sdhakray

• Sdhakray (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Khushbu Thakkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you help me out on this article. I am working on this article from last few months and every time I submit article it get rejected asking to add reliable sources. The references I had mentioned are from Times of India and other reputed websites. You let me know what content I should remove to get it approved. Should I remove her early career section?

@Sdhakray: Have you reviewed the AfC comment that I left on the draft while declining it? Please also note that you should not remove previous decline notices. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Content removal

It was not my intention to remove anything. I tried to add a link, but it was not acting right & kept freezing up. I apologize if I removed anything in error. LauraOC (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@LauraOC: Why were you adding the link to a book to various different articles? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a link to a website for the book & the author's experience with the T-6. How should I have done it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraOC (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@LauraOC: I know what it is, I am asking why you were adding it. Was it to random pages? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The book is about a T-6 texan. The author was born & raised in Danbury, Ct & grew up at the Danbury Airport. The link was to the website for the book. There is an obvious and valid connection there. I'm not understanding why it was removed ny you, or why you seem to be in charge of the content for these pages. Please put the content back or you can contact me directly to discuss it further. LauraOC (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@LauraOC: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, no one owns articles, we all contribute to the betterment of the project. I reverted the edits for two reasons: the first one was the fact that they removed content, the second was the fact that, while the book may be related, it does not have its own Wikipedia page (not a major issue considering it was in the external links section) and sounded more like a 'plug'/advert for the book as the book was not mentioned anywhere else within the articles (the edit summaries stating you have a connection to the book didn't help either). Hopefully this helps clarify things. If you have any questions or comments, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Upon further review, it was mentioned within the articles by an account editing around the same time, those edits have since been reverted by other editors. Do you have more than one account? If so, are you also DavidMoyle by any chance? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, by chance, I am not. I was simply posting a link to the page and book because it was relevant. I added the info to the edit summary, as per the rules, it stated I have to if I have a connection to the content posted. So, why is that a rule, if it gets your content removed? It was full, honest disclosure, as required. The only thing I deleted, to my knowledge, was extra blank lines/spaces at the end of the links section to make my content fit the formatting if the rest of the page. Simple housekeeping, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraOC (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@LauraOC: @DavidMoyle: Please review the comments left on this thread as they directly relate to this and answer your question User_talk:MilborneOne#Tommy_the_Texan_book. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP Wkg1974 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Innosanto Nagara

Hi TheSandDoctor, you just recently declined my submission of Innosanto Nagara on account of previous concerns not being addressed, but as far as I can tell the only previous concern was notability; the problem being that the article cited only pages from unreliable sources like the publisher/goodreads/etc. The page does still cite the publisher's site for basic background information about Nagara, but also has citations to reliable, media coverage about his writing, including a New York Times piece, a Washington Post interview with him, and reviews from Publishers Weekly, the American Library Association, and the East Bay Express. If there's another previous issue that wasn't addressed please let me know. Mehmuffin (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mehmuffin: I came to that conclusion by examining the differences in references between the version as of when DrStrauss declined it up to the most recent version before I declined it. Their AfC comments raised concerns regarding the references at the time. The differences between the references in both versions were almost identical, containing the same references (with a few added, but that is beside the point). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Sorry, I didn't realize that they had issues with the references beyond notability, but I've removed all the primary sources used except for two that provide basic information about minor facets of Nagara. While I appreciate that I've only added a few new references, I'm not sure how that is beside the point; Bearcat's AfC comment said that the article needed "to be referenced to media coverage about his writing" and those few references are media coverage about his writing. Mehmuffin (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

With the new one I've just added there is now media coverage specifically about Nagara or his books from NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the American Library Association, and the East Bay Express. Many of the original references remain in the article, yes, but I cannot understand why this would not qualify for notability, the only issue cited in the AfC comments. Mehmuffin (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mehmuffin: Sorry for the delay in my response, please see the AfC comment left by SwisterTwister on the draft if you have not already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: No worries, I saw the comment, thanks for your help with this. Mehmuffin (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome Mehmuffin! Do you need help with anything else/have any questions? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

All's well, but thanks for the offer, TheSandDoctor--I would have gotten back to the draft page already but I've been caught up in the WP:GOCE drive for the month and haven't had the time. Cheers! Mehmuffin (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations page edits

TheSandDoctor, I thought you'd like to know that editors generally should not edit the GAN page when they've approved (or failed) GA nominations after a review. By virtue of replacing the GA nominee template on the article's talk page with the GA or FailedGA template, the bot will automatically remove the GAN page entry the next time it runs (every 20 minutes). Indeed, since the bot regenerates the entire GAN page each time, manual edits of the page should not be necessary. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful note BlueMoonset! Just to clarify, doing (limited) minor corrections to the article myself while/after reviewing (not adding templates like mentioned) is okay, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I was actually just talking about the mechanics of closing a review, whether listed or not: you don't need to edit the main WP:GAN page. All you need to do is edit the article's talk page and the templates there.

While reviewing the article, making grammatical and similar minor corrections to it is fine—it's almost inevitable that you'll find typos and the like in any article you review. (It generally takes less time yourself than to write them up for the nominator.) If you start making significant structural or prose revisions yourself, rather than asking for them from the nominator, then you're becoming a contributor and probably should think about stepping aside as the reviewer. It's a fuzzy line, but one to be aware of. The reviewing guide and GA information page may give some useful information in that regard. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I realized that that was most likely the case, I just wanted to confirm (thank you for confirming). Thanks for the additional information, that is what I have been doing in reviews. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy

Hey, thanks for giving me a shout-out on the GA review for MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy! I definitely did create the article and have worked on it, although I think it was Mike Agricola (if he ever comes back) who did most of the work about 5 years ago to get this one into the shape it is in now. :) The changes since then have been relatively minor by comparison. Not sure why he did not nominate it at that time, and too bad he is inactive now, but glad to see it has finally gotten some recognition! BOZ (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome BOZ! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

14:27:36, 19 July 2017 review of submission by Hui28

• Hui28 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Winnie Chan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, just want to find out what recommendations you have on how to improve my entry on Winnie Chan? Happy to make amendments.

@Hui28: Hi there, have you seen the AfC comment left on the draft? That is a good place to start. Please also review WP:Your first article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Date formats

If you write an article on an American album, (or anything American, really), please do not use DMY format. Please use MDY. Thanks.

Also, publications are to be italicized in every instance. For example, you didn't italicize Rolling Stone at all. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Noted and I am still actively working on the article and had not gotten around to further copy-editing (was at work), thank you for doing that for me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious

rolling sports and music

Thank you for quality articles such as The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon, for filling the people in Slovenia men's national volleyball team, for reciewing articles for creation, for " Basically, I help out where I can", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Submission - "Marius Sznajderman" - please help..

-Hello. Thank you for reviewing my submission - Draft:Marius Sznajderman - which you rejected for problems with our footnote/citations. Can you shed some additional light on what I am doing wrong? An earlier reviewer said our submission is notable, if we can get the citations done correctly. Apparently I am still missing the mark. Thank you for any insight into how I can get this up to snuff! Warmest regards-Elainewitt (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elainewitt: I am certainly happy to help. My main concern was that the majority of the content was unsourced in the later sections (no proof of the collections etc.). As for the others, you have done a good job in sourcing everything said (well done!). If the sources cannot be found, please let me know and I will discuss with the other reviewer. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to let you know I resubmitted this article. Because of the difficulty of sourcing the lengthy list of exhibitions, I condensed it into a short paragraph of highlights, adding wikilinks to the museums and institutions that already have pages that are pertinent to the narrative. Essentially, I followed the style I observed on many other artist pages on Wikipedia. Thank you again for your advice and I hope this gets me over the top. I look forward to your response. Elainewitt (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Elaine Witt, July 23, 2017.

Sorry for the delay in my response Elainewitt, you have definitely made some improvements to that draft. I will see if I can get another reviewer's opinion on it and get back to you, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

18:14:44, 21 July 2017 review of submission by Murumaheswaran

• Murumaheswaran (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Murugesapillai Maheswaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I note that the draft page that was lacked notability of the subject. I wonder whether the reference in the following link might be an acceptable example of notability:

https://books.google.com/books id=VjbqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=maheswaran+limit+cassinelli&source=bl&ots=tNiZznDtFM&sig=f0IPAP0paqEMoPiVu60GrzNJRlo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifuf_EprVAhXH7IMKHXQlDLEQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=maheswaran%20limit%20cassinelli&f=false

Thank you

Hi there! Sorry for the delay in my response, please review WP:CITE, Help:Referencing for beginners, WP:Your first article, and WP:EXT. The draft is definitely in need of a references section. Please also note that external links are not allowed within the main body section of a draft/article (but are within an "external links" style section). If you have any questions, please feel free to let either myself know or ask at the Teahouse (a talk page where they are more than happy to answer questions you may have or help you out). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Video game walkthrough

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Video game walkthrough you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Tabletopia

Please let me know what kind of reviews and refrerences do you need more other than 15+ that I already provided. Also, please explain why an article about Tabletop Simulator which is a very similar service in its core, is published with the kind of reference there is? It seems much less notable compared to the links I provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabletop_Simulator

I've added everything I could find and do think that they are numerous and reliable sources from the likes of Digital Trends, Popdust, GeekDad, League of Gamemakers, Casual Game Insider, etc. which are significant in this field. No books or newspapers write about things like this, what sources are reliable enough for you?

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

Thank you. Suzume85

@SwisterTwister: do you have anything to add to this? (I am asking as you also declined it after I did). Suzume85, I am not the only one who declined it based on this and, as such, I have 'pinged' the other reviewer who declined it so that they can chime in to this discussion should they please. As it was mentioned by an administrator (Primefac) on my talk page to a user with a similar question a few months ago, "Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that ZoneMinder should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia."

Just replace "ZoneMinder" with Tabletop Simulator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Peabody Loring

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Mujadila

Thank you for participating in the DYK process. You're entitled to state your opinion about a hook, but you should not add the green tick unless you have made sure – and explicitly state in the review – that the nomination meets the five main DYK criteria. In this case, a review was started by User:Royroydeb, but the hook proposed by User:Dweller needs to be checked against the DYK criteria before you add the green tick. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1957 alleged Jordanian military coup attempt

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Information Services has been nominated for discussion

Category:Information Services, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^T 14:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)