This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks but my article still pending for Approval. as per your instruction I aslo add one more detail and Reference.Atrisomkshraj (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm writing you regarding the draft page for Marquisate of Bastida. I was wondering what else would be required, as it is a literal translation from the original version in Spanish, it is using the same main reference (Instituto Salazar y Castro), part of the CSIC (Spanish National Research Council), plus a few other websites where some partial information can be found. No additional sources cna be provided for this unfortunately, but shouldn't these be enough?
Many thanks
Maeron (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Maeron, you mention this is a translation of an original version. Where was this original version? Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks
Maeron (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maeron as this is a translation, it does need to be stated on the talk page that it's a translation to avoid copywright. the other versions of Wikipedia have different inclusion criteria. The references here I don't feel meet the English version. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
A week ago I re-submitted the page about Fair Trade Software, but I haven't recieved an answer yet. Could you take a look at it, so I can either take a look at it again or it can go live on Wikipedia?
Thanks in advance!
Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by CompetaIT (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi CompetaIT, as I reviewed it the first time around, I don't think it's a great idea for me to re-review it. However, I did take a look, and I would most likely deny the article again. It simply doesn't look notible. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Lee Vilenski/Archives/2018, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lee,
My article is about a person who is not living, a founder about whom a book was published. I have used citations to support the content. I am a beginner at Wikipedia. Can you please help me to understand as to why the article was deleted and what can be done?
Poojak92 (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Poojak92, the article in question has not been deleted. I would recommend you to continue to work on the article. I appologise, I have zero idea why I thought the subject was alive, but I would still want to see inline citations on the article. Please see referencing for beginners. The issue is, that all information in the article needs to be checkable, so just placing references at the bottom is ok, it is much better if the article refers to information from sources in the text. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. About the inline citations, the article has been produced from a biography, a novel which is released only as a hard copy. I have added the same at the bottom. So, do I need to add citations in each paragraph or sentence? Being relatively new to Wikipedia, I am a little concerned about the submission. Please guide.
Hello Lee, I have added the citations. Please have a look when ever you can.
Poojak92 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Lee Vilenski, how are you? I saw your reply to a draft I have been following up on, this upcoming soccer player named Alexis Quezada Cardenas. On his playing profile on LIGAMX http://www.ligabancomer.mx/cancha/jugador/123370/eyJpZENsdWIiOiAxMDg4MX0=/alexis-quezada-cardenas it is on his Statistics that he participated in 3 official matches, scoring 1 goal in Tercera División de México League which is professional with Venados. It is Mexico's fifth tier in the Mexican League System. Also playing 22 matches officially in Ecuador. Yes, it was not in the senior level but he has played and signed professionally. Thanks, cheers Grinhardwor108 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came across a couple of your AfC reviews and I wanted to share some thoughts. Here you're absolutely right to request further sources, but this should be done after accepting the article: even as it stood at the time it had enough to demonstrate that the village exists and populated places are inherently notable (see WP:GEOLAND). Here and hereWP:BLP doesn't apply as the people were both deceased. – Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Uanfala. First, I'd like to take some time out to say thank you for giving me some feedback! I appreciate it. The first article you mentioned, regarding Charbila, I can only apologise. The article itself was in a state, but I was not aware that it was simply inherently notable; I did later look up some information on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities; so hopefully I won't make the same mistake again. However, I did see the article is now a GA! That's great news.
For Vasantrao, I'd argue that the references aren't strong enough to prove notability, although I'd suggest that someone else could take a look. Actually, I noticed my mistake when I came around the second time, and saw that the subject is no longer alive, but the references were also a bit of a mess. The same is true for Nikolay, although he seems to have poorer references.
Once again, thanks for your feedback. I realize we need to be accurate in our assessment of articles, an apologies for the mistakes above, especially regarding an inherently notable topic. Luckily, this means I have now got a little more knowledge of WP:GEOLAND, and am less likely to make the same mistake again. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so you already know. Don't worry otherwise, minor errors are inevitable. Thank you for your help in reducing the backlog! – Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Looks like we were stepping on each other's toes a bit there. :) I think everything is sorted out now, but let me know if you think otherwise. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. So long as the message is there! Everything seems fine. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hello. I'm not sure why this article has been declined as the only information that should require referencing is the summary at the top which shows the services offered which has an adequate reference at the end of the summary.
Please could you specify what I need to change.
Thank you
Sma09ldh (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sma09ldh, did you read the rejection information provided? Not all subjects are suitable for wikipedia. Articles on wikipedia are based on the notability of the subject. To be included, the subject (The company), need to be included in-depth media by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, and pass the General Notability Guidelines. The problem isn't that the information is incorrect, it's proving that the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Johnny Kidd Stretching Ultimo Dragon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Eddie Ryan (Wrestler) with Hurricane.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Eddie Ryan Superkick.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
29 of the 32 2018 NCAA men's basketball conference tournaments have published articles, and many of those tournaments start on the same date or after the MAC Tournament. Certain of these conferences (such as the Big West) are less "notable" than the MAC in terms of revenue, rankings, and prestige. What do you have against the MAC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakencva (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Jakencva:, you will need to pass WP:GNG generally to get an article published on Wikipedia. For that you need the following:
Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
The article you have written only has one source, so you will need to add to that. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've added more sources, and the article now has more sources than the vast majority of the 30 published articles regarding 2018 NCAA men's basketball conference tournaments. There are now only two conferences without published articles regarding their 2018 men's basketball tournaments - the MEAC and the MAC. It's time to get this live. Jakencva
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eddie Ryan (wrestler) 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 HHH Pedrigree -- HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thank you very much for the feedback you gave on the article Axis & Allies (2004), it was massively helpful. I went ahead and made the modifications you recommended, and in my opinion, the article is a lot better now. Pinging you for a reassess of the article again, for a B grade. Thanks! WinterSpw (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have now updated this to a B. Congrats. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions regarding my article “SANTAVAC”.
I appreciate your feedback and have addressed each of your comments below.
Sincerely,
LokhovPetr
Remark: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue." Response: Thank you for this remark.
The section "SANTAVAC as a universal cancer vaccine" discloses the subject's notability (development of universal cancer vaccine is a big effort of humanity). So, relevant and independent references were added to this section to support the SANTAVAC notability. We are ready to expand the subject coverage further, if necessary.
In addition, it should be noted that SANTAVAC is not an organization or company, it is a new substance, which were developed according to new concept, and any mention of company or organization can be removed from the article (links already deleted).
Remark: "If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time". Response: According to Wikipedia rules, scientific papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources (see in the rules "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources"). So, such journals as Molecular& cellular proteomics, Journal of Immunology, Journal of Cancer and HVI are reliable sources. Moreover, these journals are considered as different and independent sources due to they have different editorial boards and reviewers. Moreover, there are no any relations between authors of SANTAVAC (as well as author of article "SANTAVAC" and authors of cited papers) and editorial boards (and reviewers) of these journals.
Some of the references cited can be considered as primary sources. However, primary sources are acceptable in Wikipedia (see Rules: "... primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia…").
Among provided references there are secondary sources provided by reputable peer-reviewed journals. According to WIKIPEDIA rules "secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context" and "Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize multiple primary sources, in due proportion to the expert-determined quality of the primary sources". mong the references provided is the scientific article "Cellular Cancer Vaccines: Updated Information on the Development of Vaccines Obtained from Cell Surface Antigens", which is an analytical review. The scientific article "Development of universal anti-cancer vaccines using natural antigens specific for tumor vessels" (SANTAVAC) "is a commentary and expert assessment and does not report any new research data. "SANTAVAC ™: a new universal antigenic composition for the development of cancer vaccines" is an expert review involving various sources. Certainly, all these documents meet the requirements for reliable secondary sources.
And last but not least, SANTAVAC-related papers (primary and secondary sources) were published in reputable sources which have been cited in numerous scientific papers, (i.e. secondary and tertiary reputable sources). For example, paper "Cellular Cancer Vaccines: an Update on the Development of Vaccines Generated from Cell Surface Antigens" were cited 26 time (according to Google scholar data).
Thus, according to Wikipedia rules the article "SANTAVAC" have most reliable sources used in WIKIPEDIA (i.e., papers in peer-reviewed journals), and among these there are acceptable primary sources (due to they relate to reputable academic press), typical secondary sources (review and commentary in reputable academic press), and the reliability of these sources also supported by a lot of tertiary sources (in reputable academic press, which were not provided in article SANTAVAC just to avoid superfluous data).
Dear Lee Vilenski, we thank you for considering our draft of article "SANTAVAC" and eagerly await your editorial decision.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wheels of Aurelia 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 Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Wheels of Aurelia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wheels of Aurelia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
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 HHH Pedrigree -- HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
; see Talk:Wheels of Aurelia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
