04:06:10, 2 October 2016 review of submission by Sscarf

• Sscarf (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A ASSISTANCE ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

I'd like to propose a disambiguation page for the term "Torsa", but I don't know how to make one (or if it is appropriate - if the problem could be solved another way, that's fine too). I recently created the page "TransOral Robotic Surgery," and when this surgery is used to treat sleep apnea, it is commonly referred to as "TORSA." For that reason, I would like a search of "TORSA" or "torsa" or "Torsa" to direct the user to the TransOral Robotic Surgery article. The problem is, there's already an existing article titled "Torsa," about a completely different topic. (Additionally, there is an article titled "Torsa River," and there is not currently a disambiguation page for these two similarly-titled articles). So, it seems to me that the best solution would be a disambiguation page, reached by a search of "torsa" or "Torsa" (I think it makes sense for "TORSA" to go directly to the surgery article, and "Torsa river" or "Torsa River" to go directly to the article about the river), that contains links to all three articles. However, I do not have the knowledge/skills to create the disambiguation page. Thank you for your help!

Sscarf (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sscarf (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Maproom (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Klkraft (talk · contribs)
  • Kenneth Kraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kenneth Kraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In response to a "Dead End" notice, added 8 internal links to Wikipedia. Does this solve the problem? Klkraft (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Klkraft (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Klkraft: Yes it does. The tag can be removed. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Klkraft (talk · contribs)
  • Kenneth Kraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kenneth Kraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: the COI notice. Please point out where the entry has gone astray, so that the problem can be addressed promptly. Klkraft (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The COI notice is because you have been editing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if you think that there is something that you can do to address the problem to make the tag go away, there isn't, short of not editing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pakistanfame (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Syed sardar badshah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pakistanfame (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the draft about the person, or about an organization founded by the person? The draft doesn't seem to have a single focus. Also, the English in the article needs copy-editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Klkraft (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Re: COI notice. Thank you, Robert McClenon, for your prompt response. I misunderstood a previous editor's encouragement to improve the article: "You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article" (acceptance notice from Anne Delong, 9.13.16).

I now understand that further editing is off-limits, and will honor that. Would you kindly remove the tag on my behalf? Thank you! Klkraft (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klkraft (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I won't remove the tag only because you requested that I remove it. I will only remove it if another editor agrees that it is neutral. Your request illustrates the problems with COI editing. You want a perfect Wikipedia article about yourself, and you can't get it, because that is COI and causes the article to be tagged as COI, and you can't just request that I remove the tag. Go to the article talk page and discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]