User talk:Sionk/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sionk. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hi Sionk. Many thanks for taking the time to look at my submission. I've been trying for some time to upload this article, and this is the closest I've come to getting it correct. Would you be able to let my know which references in particular you felt were unsuitable. I've had difficulty finding third party articles on some of the main facts of the page, so therefore I referenced the company website. I have seen this practised on other pages, company pages that I link to in the article, and they have been accepted so I'm a little confused.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks for your time.

Dave —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sionk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Atos Medical, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article could arguably fulfil CSD A7, but the international offices plus the many mentions I saw in Google News + Books mean that deletion could be controversial. I recommend AfD instead. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 22:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the Google hits relate to the French company Atos and its division, Atos Healthcare. I'm unaware of overseas sales offices being a notability criteria. I've nominated the article for AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs a disambiguation link at the very least. I thought it was going to be about the French IT company that handles disabled and sick benefits in the UK...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sionk, I don't believe this parish exists anymore--it must be part of today's Wigtown parish. I'm considering redirecting the article, though I foresee that perhaps a deletion discussion might have to take place to enforce it. I'd appreciate your thoughts and any evidence you have to add for the existence/notability of this parish. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether it still exists now, it clearly has existed. There are many places that are described on Wikipedia that no longer exist. But I agree, the currrent article is unclear about the status of the parish. Sionk (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed with your recent edits. Like your counterpart, you confuse a parish with a geographical area. It is perfectly acceptable to have an article on a geographical area with information about a past parish in there--in fact, it's probably preferable. The other way around is ludicrous, and you enforced that with a speedy deletion nomination of the geographical location, which was correctly declined.

You want a way forward? Convince the other editor that they should accept that their original article is not just about a parish. Then propose merging the parish article into the geographical article. I created the second article to stop the disruption caused by the first article and its creator, but it should be clear that the title of the second article, Inch, Wigtownshire, is the correct title for an all-encompassing article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not anyone's counterpart. Deleting the content of an article and copy-pasting it into a new article with a different name, on a different subject, seems far more disruptive, violating the other editor's copyright in the process. You made no attempt to resolve the matter on the original article's Talk page. Maybe it would have been simpler to rename the original article. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am staying far away from the discussions of which content belong where, but, no, the other editor's copyright was not violated because Drmies said where the information originated. It might be useful to add a talk page note as well stating that the much (all?) of the article's contents orignated in another article, and to see that article history for full details. LadyofShalott 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! But I always understood that individual editors had some sort of right to attribution for their contributions. Scotire wrote the majority of an article which was subsequently copy-pasted into a new article by Drmies, without explanation. But seeing several other editors think that is okay, I'll stay away from the fall out. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it an absolute disgrace that you find this person is not notable enough. I have now provided another source from a newspaper published this week explaining just how notable this person was. It is a shame that he wasn't the type that stuck cocaine up his nose and killed himself or done something completely different to writing a book (which sold out in WH Smiths) and even the Deputy leader of the liberal Democrats Simon Hughes has dedicated his time and efforts so that Thomas is remembered for all his great works in an area with a vast history that Thomas captures. For someone with two degrees, you obviously do not know much about the history of Rotherhithe and Bermondsey and clearly do not respect historians that capture important eras that define communities. today. This comes from someone without a degree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanash28 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, have you read the review and the PEOPLE that have significant societal positioning and to see what they have also said? And what about the works of Kant? Locke? Mill? Hobbes? Marx? Hegel? Hume? Sartre? Rousseau? Berkley? Popper? Nietzsche? Heidegger? I could go on forever! Surely the only one you would have on here would be Socrates and even then all we have is Plato's words to account for him! I'd actually rather my Grandfather's important work capturing an era that you "victors" choose to erase from the history books wasn't on here now. You are nothing more than snobs with no respect for a dead man that meant something to his community. You would easily add some pedophile or crack addict celebrity that was notable for messing up his life and probably many others than you would someone who served his community like an angel serving God. Disgrace! You can delete the article now and delete me from here, too. You are all that is wrong with the world. Mr. Ash (signed!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.97.213.143 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Quick note re: this revert; in doing so, you removed a bunch of useful edits by a new user, which is not really ideal, especially as this looks to me to now be close to viable. I've reinstituted them now, however. Nikthestoned 08:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, just seen this so can understand! Disregard the above... Nikthestoned 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article mentions in line 64 De Luca and Morricone, unfortunately it was in 1996 and it is difficult to find other articles, cordially (http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1997/gennaio/09/senza_titolo_co_10_9701092844.shtml), and sorry my bad english -Ferdinando Castaldo (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012

Where? It looks mostly like an events listing to me. Sionk (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a major Italian newspaper and the important events of the week, one of which is the prize at line 64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinando Castaldo (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And 'old news, however, is already having tracked this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinando Castaldo (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --Ferdinando Castaldo (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.151.63 (talk)

No problem :) Sionk (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm re-submitting the article on "Higitals" you removed. The article more than fulfills criterion for independent, reliable, and published sources. See sources at the bottom on the screen. I'm sure you'll find that they satisfy Wikipedia's standard for legitimate sources. Sources include Visibility PR, Media Post, and The Marketing Site. There you will see that the term "higitals" is used by others besides Brand Keys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Higitals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higitals (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Sionk (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC). Sources listed are NOT all by Brand Keys. For example: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/170495/are-higitals-a-leading-or-lagging-indicator-dep.html. This independent and reliable source mentions "Higitals," including the title itself. Therefore the term "Higitals" has received coverage outside of Brand Keys. There is also Jon Ruiz Consulting and Customer Think.

I'm happy to make more changes, but the article on Higitals is in compliance with Wikipedia's standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higitals (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, as per my explanation on your Talk page. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of your explanation. I already addressed those concerns in the statement above. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/170495/are-higitals-a-leading-or-lagging-indicator-dep.html. http://www.customerthink.com/news/advertisers_can_identify_intersection_of_brand_strategy_on_top_digital_platforms. http://www.jonruiz.com/uploads/1/1/4/6/11469218/omma_global_sf_notes.pdf

You say the term Higitals has not received adequate coverage to merit a page. That is incorrect. You say that the sources I have listed aren't independent or reliable. That is wrong. If you had taken the time to familiarize yourself with all the sources in addition to the ones you'd mentioned, you would have seen that they do satisfy Wikipedia's criteria and stop wasting my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higitals (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, am I meant to be talking to you about the Gillon page on here? Not really sure... I have added the following: Gillon is credited with making "a major philosophical contribution tio critical thinking about moral issues raised by the practice of medicine"[2] and with being "the leading British advocate and interpreter of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles approach."[3]. The references are to the Cambridge World History of Medical Ethics. I am not sure what your comment about being a retired professor / chairman of an Institute is aimed at. He did hold a chiar at Imperial until his retirement. He now holds an emeritus chair, a privilege not all retired professors are accorded. Frankly, whilst some UK individuals are more well known in Bioethics (Harris, Warnock) there are few, if any, who are more notable in UK medical ethics than Gillon. Along with Campbell he is the only UK recipient of the Hastings Centres Henry Knowles Beecher award. His position is such that it is he who was invited to write the entry on UK Medical Ethics in MacMillan's Encyclopaedia of Bioethics Edited by Post). He also wrote an article 'Medical Ethics in GB'. His authorship of these means it is difficult, within wikipedia rules, to cite these as evidence of his relevance. Let me know if you have any further concerns or guidance. Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanEmmerich (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"If---!" was a picture feature that ran in "Thrilling Wonder" Magazine--it is not "Thrilling Wonder" magazine as your comment seems to indicate.

Rather than plop "IF---!" onto the "Thrilling Wonder" page, if it is not deemed worthy of its own place in the Wikipedia annals as a notable "picture feature" that created the idea/concept of "zero gravity" (among other things), it would be better served to put it on the artist/author/creator's page.Dore' Ripley (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)D Ripley

Hello Sionk,

Thanks for the intervention. Please note that the "official site" is actually made by one of the representing galleries (as you'll see from the "contact" tab)

Best Reneduchamp (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zhaga Consortium page. I've included a few non-specialist references,^[1][2] please have a look again. --Burt Harris 04:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burt Harris (talk • contribs)

Hi Sionk,

I believe you commented on my talk page to give me some more feedback. I wasnt sure how to respond in order to get you to review again but i added a couple more CREDIBLE sources. Please look it over again. I rarely used blogs, they are mostly from legit sources (billboard.com, allmusic.com, mtv.com, etc). Also, wouldn't the links to other wikipedia pages count as additional sources since those pages also have to have some credibility?

I would really like to try and get that notification box off my page when you pull it up on the internet where it says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2012)". If i still need more citations please be specific as to which part. I've done my research on other wiki's and I know i've provided more than enough reliable sources than other songwriter wiki's that have been approved. Thanks! Smacint (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Sept 12, 2012

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to add up more references. However, please take note that;

(i) at least 3 sources refer to the book as Edison Marshall's "best-known work" and "most popular"; one of these sources is a directory-type reference work published by the Kent State university - I think this source should be considered reliable

(ii) there exists a Wikipedia entry for the film based directly and totally on the book with the same name; it's only logical that the book version should be in the Wikipedia as well.

Best Regards, THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to appeal this decision. What is the procedure for doing that? I am having trouble finding that information on the Wikipedia help section. Does only one editor at Wikipedia make this sort of final decision?

I did not write an article "desperate to stuff itself with any and every mention of Lederer online." I simply included many references in order to support each individual point I wrote about in regard to Lederer. There are HUNDREDS of mentions of Lederer online.

Please Google: "Michael Lederer Dubrovnik" Also, "Michael Lederer Das Grosse Speil" Also, "Michael Lederer The Great Game."

He is the Artistic Director of the Dubrovnik Shakespeare Festival. (Who would not consider that notable?) He has been written about often in EVERY major Croatian press that deals with culture, including some of the many interviews I referenced. The President of Croatia was at his side during the announcement of the Festival. That's pretty notable! Presidents don't show up on camera and in print for just anyone. The Spanish, Hungarian and German press have also written about Lederer's founding role in and leadership of DSF.

“Die Welt” is the second largest newspaper in Germany. Four months ago, they declared Lederer to be "among the great American writers." ( http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/literatur/article106262051/Verluste-wie-faszinierende-Ausgrabungen.html ) I do have to ask if you read the review, because you write "there was one paragraph about Lederer." Please look at their review, which was published in their highest profile, big Saturday literature round-up. His name appears not in one, but in SEVEN paragraphs. Die Welt wrote things like (I will translate from the German for you): “The author is a renowned man of the theatre"..."The Great Game shows Lederer to be a brilliant chronicler of loss"..."Michael Lederer plays with a former Cold War balance that still touches the present"..."Lederer is among the great American writers." I'm sorry, but all that is no short praise. I don't know why you would not consider, as “Die Welt” did, Lederer a notable author. I also gave the link to the publisher's website showing testimonial statements by Vladimir Sorokin, the most famous novelist in Russia today, and John Guare, Tony award winning American playwright. They both consider Lederer notable.

In my reference notes, I give links showing where he has been written about in: Berliner Morgenpost, London's Evening Standard, the South China Morning Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury, Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Time Out Dubrovnik, Forum Magazine, three headlining interviews in The Dubrovnik Times, Germany's TheatreHeute magazine, the 1983 California Theatre Annual, Das Buch von der Angewandten Theaterwissenschaft (a roundup of influential theatre artists in Germany today). That is a lot of important publications noting someone you say is "not notable?"

Just for fun, I also described the 17th century manuscript collection he founded at Harvard University, and provided the link to that: ( http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~hou02249). That was a side note to his main accomplishments. I found it interesting, and thought others might also.

I also included some details about his childhood because if you Google his father Ivo Lederer (New York Times, your own Wikipedia) you will see what an interesting background Michael Lederer has. I know that notability does not “rub off,”but the New York Times’ description of the father’s family background is also Michael Lederer’s family background. CBS made a film about it, and it has been the subject of numerous books.

It is true that Michael Lederer has not yet "exploded" into "big" fame, but as I understand your guidelines, Wikipedia is not only about "very famous" people. The biographical notability guidelines say that one must be: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.” I'm sorry, but how can anyone think this guy is not "notable" when so many have noted him

I will edit out some of the lesser details (though I know them to be true via the references I provided), and I will wait to hear, please, what procedure I should follow to get a second opinion about this article or how to re-submit it for publication. MJOBerlin (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! ~It is useful advice. Wakari07 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for taking time to review my submission. I am sorry you rejected it.

I've added some additional information and resubmitted.

Her co-host, Tom Keene, has a Wikipedia article, and her show's competitor, CNBC's Squawk Box, and its cast, are notable too with articles, so I included them in my edit.

I feel she is notable because of her rise within Bloomberg's broadcasters to co-host of their flagship morning financial news show.

If you had other ideas, please let me know.

Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marki10024 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, did you forward my submission to the other author for review - I am new to this, so am not sure next step. I assume it's back in a queue. :) Thx. Marki10024 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined on 20 September 2012 by Sionk (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarize 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.

In a prior communication, we were told that: 1-Original sources and research were fine since the origin, basis and derived concepts characterizing the CV theory of dyslexia was published by the author of this article--most referenced by others in secondary sources.

2-There were sufficient independent reliable secondary sources included within the submission. However, 25- 50 more are available and could readily be included if desired.

So as to conform to the Wikipedia format, it appears that a distinction or clarification is needed between a logical interpretation of research facts and unsubstantiated subjective opinions. Also, are contrasts to be avoided when new research data tends to refute prior or even current unsubstantiated assumptions and convictions?

Answers will hopefully resolve the remaining encyclopedia stylistic issues required by Wikipedia.

Thanks for you interest and help. Harold Levinson, MD (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I provided one just before you sent me that note! I had no idea I had removed the other editors edits before saving the summary, I thought I was just making a minor change :)Jennie | ☎ 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for reviewing the Toby Zoates article Sionk—I was worried that it got lost in the ether! I totally understand the matters that you have raised and I will continue to work on the article and will then resubmit a new draft, as Zoates has been an active artist for many years now and is deserving of a Wiki article, I think.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are oblivious to the backlogs at RfD or RM but in certainly doesn't help to insinuate that other editors are unwilling to assist or even obstructive.[1][2]. Thanks for you understanding. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I was unaware of any backlogs. I think I'm saying there seem to be no admins available who are willing to make the page move, which seems to be the same thing you're saying. I'm quite happy to wait, but the other editor directly involved in the page move discussions was getting impatient. We're both trying to rescue a dire article, but not really making much headway, so you will understand the frustration. Sionk (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed you've moved it over the redirect. Thanks!! Sionk (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the frustration and you're welcome for the move. You've dome the right things, namely moving one and separating the topics but then picked initially the wrong board to complete the operation. With the requested move opened the redirect discussion could have been closed procedurally immediately, thus avoiding to have one problem to show up in two queues, and then indeed these days some patience required with the moves, but that is unfortunately the same for other editors and their page moves.

Just that this problem is better addressed else where but not inside the specific topic discussions, because apart from bloating them, it's not true that admins who are handling moves are not willing to do this particular one, whilst on the other side risking to pass the frustration on. Happy editing--Tikiwont (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please cay you write me what exactly is needed to add to the "Articles for creation/Mirek Kaufman"? Thanks very much. Jan Lukes (henzyhoska) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.130.194 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1017 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am already working there. But it is time consuming and real life is getting in the way. Sionk (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sionk. Thank you for working on the wikiarticle Bristol Pound. Please be encouraged to expand it a little further. If the article grows to have 1500 characters of prose within 5 days of its creation (Sept. 19th + 5 days = Sept. 24th), it qualifies to be nominated for an appearance in the DYK section on MainPage. Happy typing! Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! It needs another 230 characters of prose to reach the target. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That was so quick! Nicely done! Anyway, you might want to get Osarius (talk · contribs) involved in the DYK nom. The article was created by Osarius after all. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Just read this, excellent news and I'm so happy that it's been nominated - I was surprised when I created the article that it didn't already exist. Lets get it to the next step - The Main Page! Osarius - Want a chat? 00:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that the Bristol Pound is going onto MainPage at midnight tonight (UTC)! Yeah! --PFHLai (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to do the sums to work out what that is in GMT :) Sionk (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles for creation/The Toven

'ATTENTION SIONK'

YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON WHO HAS DELETED PREVEOULY SUBMITTED ARTICALS RELATED TO THIS ARTIST YEARS AGO AND OBVEOUSLY ARE BIASAND IN ADDITION CLAIMING THAT THE THE http://www.sanhop.com/interviews--news.htmlINTERVIEW CITED ON THIS PAGE IS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE ARTICAL OR THE TOVEN? WE ARE NOT CLAIMING HE INVENTED THE AUTOMOBILE.THIS MAN NEEDS TO PROGRESS HIS CAREER AND FEED HIS FAMILY.PLEASE STOP BEING ANAL WE ARE REQUESTING A PROMPT CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY "INDEPENDANT OF THE SOURCE" IN THIS ARTICAL(IN YOUR OWN WORDS) IT WAS PREVEOUSLY REVIEWD BY SNOWYSUSAN AND WE CORRECTED WHAT SHE SUGGESTED.

Sionk

if you keep deleting my help questions without addressing thenm i am goint to report you!!!! answer my questions directly and we can resolve this.

FYI

(1) I didn't delete any of your articles. I don't have the facilities to delete articles. I've only been seriously active on Wikipedia for the last 12 months.

(2) I didn't delete your comments. You deleted them twice yourself and, because of your {{help}} request, another editor came to my Talk page and deleted your comments again.

(3) I would be perfectly within my rights to delete abusive comments from my own Talk page.

(4) I've absolutely no intention of spending my time helping someone that SHOUTS AT ME USING CAPITALS, calls me "biased" and "anal", threatens to "report" me. Please improve your manners and treat people as you would like to be treated yourself. Politeness goes a long way!

Sionk (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I just stopped by to ready about the DYK nomination, and saw this monstrosity. For the anon though, you state that "THIS MAN NEEDS TO PROGRESS HIS CAREER AND FEED HIS FAMILY". Well, I have bad news for you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Therefore any article that does so, regardless of personal circumstances, does not belong on Wikipedia and will be removed without question. I have more news for you - I feel that a read of WP:WikiBullying, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point might all be useful to you. A quick read of the Manual of Style will also be of benefit. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Osarius - Want a chat? 00:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

response to Osarius comment

your right wiki bullying on your behalf for butting into issues that are not yours and making a rude comment regarding one's livelyhood sionk can address his or her own issues.Your bias as well no one else would have butted in the way you did.People dont "happen"to stop by pages and randomly makes comments like you did. As for your comment about being a soapbox for promotion if their was any soap i respectfully submit that you may want to clean your mouth with it.we dont need to promote this artist or anyone else using wiki their are plenty of powerful social networks to do that you might want to talk with wiki editors about promotions. Lets stick to issue at hand"notability"

response to Sionk Ok in some manor's you are correct i mean look at snowysusans response to us when she declined the article.that was polite!she was specific and i thought i complied with a independant source in the san-hop interview cited on the page. I see many articles that were created alot more dense than this that needs alot of work yet they are visible and available on wiki. I need to specifically no why the san hop interview is not exceptable to me the term "notable" is possibly being used as a weapon persay against those that are notable simply refering me to the rules wont solve the issue we are not saying he invented light.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok in some manor's you are correct i mean look at snowysusans response to us when she declined the article.that was polite!she was specific and i thought i complied with a independant source in the san-hop interview cited on the page. I see many articles that were created alot more dense than this that needs alot of work yet they are visible and available on wiki. I need to specifically no why the san hop interview is not exceptable to me the term "notable" is possibly being used as a weapon persay against those that are notable simply refering me to the rules wont solve the issue we are not saying he invented light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.60.108 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 September 2012‎ (UTC)

It looks like you've had advice from three editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego and another on your draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Toven. I've also left an additional explanation there. Sionk (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ignorant comment user c.fred talk page sionk what happen to the politness nonsense you mentioned on your talk page? we knew you were bias and your commentabove prooves that.an interview about someone is about someone get it?you talk page is 100% about you! the toven isn't talking about himself san hop asked the questions pal in the interview the toven just answered.more than one is not normally required your incorrect and once again bias the golden rule you mentioned is a bogus smokescreen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ignorant comment user c.fred talk page sionk what happen to the politness nonsense you mentioned on your talk page? we knew you were bias and your commentabove prooves that.an interview about someone is about someone get it?you talk page is 100% about you! the toven isn't talking about himself san hop asked the questions pal in the interview the toven just answered.more than one is not normally required your incorrect and once again bias the golden rule you mentioned is a bogus smokescreen as for your "free website" comment..you work for wiki free right? isn't wiki a free website cant users write articles for free? and your point was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

we located contact info for j.Little who edited the interview and is infact a san hop editor you can see her name at the bottom of the interview contact her at sanhop.editors@gmail.com im sure she will simply verify this. any further verification would then be unfair scrutany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Toven - Your responses and comments here are not clear, neither are they constructive. You are very close to getting blocked. Cease and desist immediately and behave like an educated person, or you'll find yourself blocked pretty soon. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

response

everything is clearly understood you and the rest of the wiki editors know exactly whats being conveyed.We will dispute any blocking or banning at the highest level.you should convey your above comments to some of your counterparts!the main issue at hand can never be blocked if you block us others will multiply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toven (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sionk, I am writing about this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Teun_Voeten After your observation I have gone trough the references again; it's true that some of them are by Teun Voeten but, as he is a journalist, those are to prove that the work he has done really exist.can you please tell me what exactly it's wrong in that so I can fix it? I have read guidelines on the notability of people and reliable sources, and I don't know how to adjust this article. I am pretty new to wikipedia, and I will really appreciate your suggestions and help. thanks for your time and kindness Ransfortstraat (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I had replied on my talk page but maybe I have made some mistake because I havn't heard from you for quite long. (in that, if you could tell me what I did wrong, that would be great)

Anyway, this is what you wrote me about a week ago about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Teun_Voeten

the best advice I can offer is to look at Wikipedia's 'golden rule', which explains in simple terms what is needed to prove a subject is notable. Articles and books by Voeten only show he is doing his job, unfortunately. We need to see significant coverage about him, in sources that are (reliable and) independent from him. If you have any further queries, please respond here, on your Talk page. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Volkskrant review of Voeten's book may be a good source to add to your article. At least it is an independent source about his book. Sionk (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your suggestion, I have added the article.

However, if that article was a good proof of notability, isn't the same for Magnum Foundation and Dallas Observer ? Aren't those enough? What else shall I do? At any rate, thanks for your time and kindness Ransfortstraat (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy and forgot to reply to your follow-up. The Dallas Observer seems the one very good in-depth news source. The Magnum Foundation is a charity that supports photographers, not really an independent reliable source. Voeten is participating in a discussion about something else other than him, so it doesn't tell us a great deal about him either. As per the advice above, your article needs multiple reliable sources that are independent of Voeten and talk about him in some depth. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sionk,

regarding both tunnel people and Teun Voeten page:

you complained about the references because there were few third part references.

Now, among all the other references, in both articles there are these 3 references citing articles about Teun Voeten and his work.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/2443867/2011/06/10/Terugkeren-naar-de-tunnelmens.dhtml

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2012/03/teun_voeten_at_pdnb_gallery.php

http://nrcboeken.vorige.nrc.nl/recensie/een-levende-onderwereld

These are all from very important magazines and the fact that two of them are in Dutch doesn't mean that are not reliable sources for notability (am I wrong?)

Moreover a BBC interview of Mr Voeten has just been published http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/10/101027_outlook_manhattan_tunnel_people.shtmlI have added it among the other references.

Do these article still don't meed wikipedia standard?

I must add that I shall ask opinions to other wikipedia editors. That is not to go against your opinion, but for instance tunnel people page was approved and published by other editors, who didn't complain for references, why this article is not good any more?

At any rate thanks for your time Ransfortstraat (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the best thing to do will be to resubmit it to Articles for Creation. The wait should be shorter because there is currently a drive to clear the backlog. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi There

Thanks for reviewing my document.

I did not understand and honestly I found it is very lame excuse to delete my document with comments like "But nothing seems to be known about him.", specially without asking or talking to me.

I am a Member of Wikipedia Australia and I am regularly raising this concern that some of us taking wikipedia as our personal playing ground and taking satisfaction by deleting other's document.

Date of birth, I know because I am his brother. I have seen thousands of document without citation to date of birth. Also my idea is to improve the document as I go. As you can see, he is a Minister of a country, if you needed date of birth of a minister, I would suggest you to google for it.

Can I please request you to get my document back and as I mentioned I need time and want to improve it as I go. If you are not able to do that, can I request not to review any of my future document, because I am going to write this document again.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifjubaer (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The draft article is still there, I have not moved it or deleted it. You have provided a link to it above. You are welcome to improve and re-submit the article. All the best! Sionk (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

Could you let me know which sources on the page for Untold (musician) were unreliable?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingmm (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

Thanks for taking a look at the First Mile page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/First_Mile ]. I see it has been declined due to a lack of reliable sources. Can you please be more specific? The page cites several academic sources for the material, as well as web pages of the various organizations mentioned (linked to in the footnotes).

Thanks. Firstmile2012 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sionk,

Thanks for your clarification of your review, that is very helpful. I see your reasoning in terms of seeing First Mile as not widely used. That said, I wanted to draw your attention to several past and upcoming references to the term, including in Wikipedia.

• As noted in the submission, Richard Lowenberg also used the term in the mid-1990s and 2000s, including to describe several initiatives that took place in New Mexico and California. Please see: http://www.1st-mile.com/Members/rl/rl-firstmile

• In Canada, a 2010 report used this term to describe broadband development in First Nations. Please see: http://meeting.knet.ca/mp19/file.php/85/Putting-the-Last-Mile-First-Dec-1-2010.pdf

• Also in Canada, the term has also been employed in several academic papers and conference presentations associated with this report and research group. For example, see: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/2/ and http://meeting.knet.ca/mp19/mod/book/view.php?id=1722&chapterid=1441

• The peer-reviewed electronic Journal of Community Informatics is planning a special issue that features 'First Mile' projects from around the world. For the call for papers, please see: http://meeting.knet.ca/mp19/file.php/85/CFP_-_JoCI_First_Mile.pdf

• Several existing Wikipedia pages do mention First Mile, though not in detail. I will include links and relevant sections below:

From ‘Last-Mile’ page (where search term ‘First Mile’ is currently redirected) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mile

"Because the last mile of a network to the user is also the first mile from the user to the world when he is sending data (such as uploading), the term "first mile" is sometimes used."

[I also wanted to note this is a technically-focused article, whereas the First Mile page adds elaborates the political and socio-cultural contexts associated with the statement above. Also, perhaps we should update that sentence to read "when s(he) is sending data" :) ]

Ethernet in the First Mile page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_First_Mile

Again, this page focuses on the technical rather than political and socio-cultural contexts, though from a design perspective it addresses a similar issue (networking from the perspective of a user).

I am happy to revise the submitted article to more clearly address these points. But before I get started, is this enough to warrant inclusion?

Best regards, Firstmile2012 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sionk,

Thank you again for your comments on the First Mile submission. I haven't yet heard from you regarding my questions above - I tried to summarize some mentions of First Mile beyond the 1998 UN report.

Can you let me know if these additions address your concerns?

Thank you, Firstmile2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my post about Precision Apiculture. But your comments for declining are "Please provide at least some relibale published sources to prove that this is a notable topic". This topic is really new and it is not possible to find any sources about it. I with my colleagues are trying to define this Precision Apiculture and making researches connecting with it. So the only sources are our scientific publications. So it is not allowed to publish some really new topic and/or definitions in wikipedia? I will wait for your clarification. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Zacepins (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On 27 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bristol Pound, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bristol Pound, launched on September 19, 2012, is the largest alternative currency in the UK to the official pound sterling? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bristol Pound. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't presume that the IP and Scotire are the same person, and it doesn't hurt anything anyway. On an unrelated note, you objected that parishes aren't necessarily notable. Is there any chance that this is a sort of minor civil division? I'm aware that civil parishes are an English institution; I'm simply unaware of what the lowest level of subdivision is in Scotland and wonder if this parish might be a governmental entity and not just a religious one. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make that argument. That is Drmies' line of thinking. In my opinion if a historical (but no longer existing) parish has been widely written about then there should be no problem accepting an article as long as the article is about the old parish. In the case of the Penninghame article, when I reveiwed it only a tiny proportion was about the old parish. Scotire has a habit of creating (or co-opting) articles using very obscure historical documents and I've already suggested they refrain (which explains why they are on my watchlist). But I agree, no lives will be lost if the AfC remains :) Sionk (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting slip of the mouse: Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom revision 22:57, 28 September. Qexigator (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For your work on reviewing and editing new articles, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal of Merit Spotting what is lacking from an article and then improving it is why this barnstar is so well-deserved. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 23:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 120 North LaSalle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daedelus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - the following page was declined by you stating that there was a lack of reliable resources for citing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eirebus_Ltd

However, a lot of the information here is historical information provided to me directly by the company when I requested it and as such doesn't have a citable source. This sort of information is unlikely to be in the public domain. However, references were added when talking about additional services.

Can you please advise a little more on this?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetseo (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Sionk. I think perhaps that you may not have properly checked the references for the article on the Tegola network.

Surely the Scottish Government is an independent, reliable source, and here I quote the record in its entirety:

S4M-01260 Rhoda Grant: Tegola Broadband Access for Remote Highlands and Islands Communities—That the Parliament recognises the benefits and opportunities for providing high quality, low cost, wireless broadband to the remote communities in the Highlands and Islands; considers that the Tegola project, which is sponsored by the University of Edinburgh and the University of the Highlands and Islands and built by the communities of Arnisdale and Knoydart, has conclusively demonstrated the economic and social benefits of reliable internet connections; notes that in October 2011, when telephone lines to the area were completely knocked out by lightning strikes, the residents were able to maintain communications with the outside world through the Tegola network and that emergency health services to a much wider area were diverted through Tegola, and considers that establishing the infrastructure to enable communities to build such networks should be a government priority. Supported by: Sarah Boyack*, Jamie McGrigor*, Liam McArthur*

In addition to the radio 4 programme, there is also the (referenced in the article) series of pieces by Rory Cellan-Jones the BBC technology correspondent, likewise independent and reliable.

And there was also the documentary commissioned by the RSE, as well independent and reliable.

I'm not clear what sources you expect if these are insufficient to establish noteability.

Granted the article itself isn't great, it is probably of stub quality, but that can be improved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FringeOkapi (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

well...according to wikipedia citation and references they say that using Twitter as a resource is not acceptable but I went through lots of accepted articles in wikipedia and found out that there are articles that used verified twitter accounts as a resource (e.g. Adam Lambert ) because when somebody's twitter is verified by twitter as a celebrity, then it becomes a news resource for different sites and Tommy Joe Ratliff twitter account (https://twitter.com/TommyJoeRatliff ) is a verified twitter account and I'm sure u didnt even bothered to check that. Plus the article I wrote had different sections that "didnt" include Adam Lambert and was totally about Mr. Ratliff and again u didnt notice that. But now I changed the article and excluded the twitter links-although I'm still in a big wonder that there are so many accepted articles using twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianGlamDr (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.. If an editor adds red links to an article or list I think its a productive thing. I noticed you're in the habit of removing red links from articles and I don't think its constructive. Far better would be to start the article or at least find a source to support it as notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Which article(s) are you thinking of? I don't mind redlinks at all, unless they are completely out of control. WP:LISTPEOPLE prohibits unsourced redlinks of living people. So when it comes to list articles, I have a habit of removing them (generally after looking online to see if there are any obvious sources to support them). Sionk (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The List of Danish architects is an obvious example which is blatantly out-of-control. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is most foolish to assume just because they're red linked they're non notable. I could find 650 sources to support each one them but more constructive would be to start the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As you know, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We don't assume redlinked people are notable. But from what you say, you'll have no problem adding sources to the hundreds of redlinks you've recently added. Sionk (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"We don't assume red linked people are notable". LOL, so wikipedia is complete? The names all have entries on Danish wikipedia which are almost entirely sourceable to Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon, a dictionary of notable Danish architects. Oh, hang, that's also red linked, so let's assume naturally they're all non notable including the dictionary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon is a "central register of artworks and artists in the collections of Danish state-owned and state-subsidised museums" i.e. a database. So it proves the architects exist/existed, but not their notability. Should every architect that appears onan online database deserve a Wikipedai article? Unlikely. Sionk (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes its a state-owned dictionary of Danish architects and artists, so yes, I'd say any architect who the national government consider notable enough to write about, English wiki should also consider them notable. Such sources are fantastic for routing out notable people, couldn't ask for a more reliable source. Thanks for clarifying that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:LISTPEOPLE? Or simply decide it didn't apply to you? In any case, you say there are hundreds of sources for each redlink, so why the sarcasm? Just add the sources and the problem will be solved for now. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I never read rules set by people with no credentials or expertise on a given subject, every topic and article is different. So no, I've never read it. A large part of it is BLP related, an irrational fear that names will wrongly be added. An intelligent, educated fellow would assume that a batch of articles which are almost all sourceable to a reliable biographical dictionary with half decent articles on another wikipedia to be notable and that it is productive to put them in a list and begin working towards covering them all and improving wikipedia as a resource. In fact I think one of the most important things long term for english wikipedia would be red linking articles wherever on here and encouraging growth and the same coverage on English wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• If I may contribute to this discussion, I must say I sympathize with Sionk. The huge number of red links in the List of Danish Architects is enough to put anyone off, even Wikipedians who might be interested in contributing new articles (although that is not, of course, the purpose of a list). Although Dr. Blofeld has recently made a laudable effort towards the coverage of Danish architects, I really believe that at the very least, each red link should have at least one reference. If indeed, they are included in Kunstindeks Danmark & Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon as most of them seem to be, then it could be used as a reference (if possible with a link to the article in question). An alternative may be to create a list of Danish architects in the Danish Wikipedia which would then be accessible from the language interlink. At the moment, the names exist only in the Danish category Arkitekter fra Danmark. So I suggest we keep the list with the red links for a couple of weeks in the hope that references can be added. If not, I agree with Sionk that they should be removed. --Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I completely agree, there's no harm in keeping the links for a few weeks if Dr B is honestly saying these are notable architects worthy of inclusion. I see s/he's already created a number of one-line stubs, based on the Danish online database. As you can guess, I prefer the 'Ipigott' strategy, of writing decent, meaningful articles based on more than one source, but then what do I know ;) Sionk (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll see that some of Dr. B's stubs are already developing into better articles, so let's not be too critical. And he seems perfectly ready to write "sub stubs" on them all if that's the way we want to go. My problem is that I often have more difficulty in tidying up a start based on a poor Google translation than in creating an article from scatch. This is why I would prefer to work with a priority list based on evidence of prominence/notability. Such lists can usually be established pretty quickly on the basis of the usual sources. I'll try to develop something along these lines over the next few days. If any of the red links on the list ring a bell for you, let me know. --Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ipigott has been kind enoughb to ask for my opinion on this matter on my talk page, although I am not sure if this is the correct place to do so. I am all for removing red links if it can deter anyone from stubbing them. As I have previously commented, in relation to Danish buildings (and anything else, really), I believe it it a very unproductive approach which only leads to a more rudimentary coverage of the subject in the long run. I don't see what good the red link does in the list of architects. In articles they do seem to have some relevance since they make it easier to check how many articles link to a given architect and thus wheather it is time to give him/her a biographical article. But again, if that red link just means that someone will come along and stubs it, I think it would have been better to leave it out.Ramblersen (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad we're all reaching some sort of consensus. If you want to remove the redlinks, I'll be right behind you ;) Your comment might be better placed on the article's Talk page too. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to quality vs quantity again doesn't it. Of course I'd like to magically start 600 articles fully translated and sourced and don't like to see quality jeopardised. But you have to ask, would wikipedia be better off having a least an outline of information about some of the missing people or nothing at all? So you all agree that L.P. Aakjær is more damaging than constructive because it not start + class? I disagree. And I also disagree that routing out missing notable subjects and improving the coverage of the list isn't productive, I think its worse to completely ignore them than have red links. Because the number of articles I'm likely to fully write given my lack of Danish understanding are slim and I'll lose interest in the subject. The problem as Ramblersen and even I have said is the lack of contributors who'll expand the stubs. We need greater organization and to contact Danish language schools and such and encourage translations on a wider scale. But somebody has to take the initiative, which nobody but Ipigott here as given me credit for. I'm going to de red link them by placing inter Danish wiki links for starters, if people still really want sources then they can be added at a later date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Once table is filled out with info it'll be too much kb for one page so the template is there ready to split on separate pages, probably like A-D, E-I etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I didn't know there was a KB limit to Wikipedia articles. Many articles are very long and complex, far more so than this list. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi you mentioned that Anthony was not mentioned on any of the Wikipedia articles of the bands mentioned in his record. Only you are mistaken. If you read my article youd see that his nick name is "Tiny Bubz" clearly mentioned in the article and thats how he is listed both on T.S.O.L.'s article and on Hed pe's article as drummer as well as all the references listed he absolutely meets the requirement for notability.Also if you click on the find sources link that Wikipedia provides it goes straight to Videos and articles of Tiny with T.S.O.L. please re read and re consider. thank you for your time, user:Punkinfo 12:15 5 Oct.2012

Hi there! {{Wikify}} has recently been deprecated in favor of more specific tags, which are listed at Template:Wikify#See_also. When tagging an article that needs more links, for instance, please use {{underlinked}}. Thanks! Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a shame though, because it covered several issues in one tag. I'll remember in future. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem with it, unfortunately. It's too vague. Also, the term "wikify" doesn't have an obvious meaning, so it can be a little confusing to new editors. Guoguo12 (Talk)  00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry I'm not quite sure I know what you are talking about when you ask me to find books or other sources related to proving Anthony Biuso is in fact a band member of T.S.O.L. Or the Dickies or Hed pe? He is listed on their pages as drummer and on all three albums as well, as my article was well researched and has multiple reliable sources listed.Did you even check the resources? I have no Idea why you are making publishing of this article so difficult? Check the listed resources. Why on earth would I create a fictitious article? I've Written many published pages that are all legit and well resourced. This isn't my first article and the facts are all listed, there is all you need right in the article. You initially stated that his name wasn't listed as drummer on the other Wikipedia pages which wasn't true and now you're saying I need to find legit resources? What's wrong with what's there? I totally disagree with your reasoning here. Anthony Biuso not only writes articles for Modern Drummer magazine he's sponsored by many legit sourced drum company's.He also does appear in a book along side 500 other notable drummers and thats listed in the article as well " Sticks N' Skins" written by Jules Follett. I did my homework and left all the sources for you to check. maybe I need to write the article under his nick name of "Tiny Bubz"? Which is mentioned in the article and then put his birth name down? I don't understand what more of a resource that you need?

Why did you decline my submission? It is obviously notable enough for German Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksfan0807 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the standards on German Wikipedia are lower than on English Wikipedia. I based my decision on English Wikipedia guidelines. Sionk (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I reread the guideines you referenced, and I don't agree. The film is referenced by multiple independent sources. Also notable about the film is it's subject matter of the Holy Robes, the Trier Dom, and Trier itself which is the oldest city in Germany. The spoken language of the film is "Trierer Platt", a regional dialect of German. Also, it is a widely distributed film as it is available for purchase on Amazon. Multiple independent references, subject matter revolving around four other subjects of significance good enough for Wikipedia, and widely available for purchase. What more do you want from an independant film? And finally, isn't the fact that this is the translation of the German page enough in and of istelf? Ducksfan0807 (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why "Mark Stacey" is not classed as original research, as one of my submission was declined because it was classed as "original research" although it had references. Thanks. Scotire

I don't understand your question. Your draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penninghame, Wigtownshire is still waiting to be reviewed. I don't see the connection with Mark Stacey. Sionk (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it allowed to put the detailed material in footnotes? (my preference) Or some of that info could go into the article on the 1st Continental Light Dragoons which I did not create so reluctant on going bull in China shop in somebody else's article as I don't feel I have all the data to do a rewrite on the article. Thanks for the feed back/edit. (I can't believe you just knocked out the picture of the Browns, brutal! I am not arguing :−) I understand the thinking) Very cordially yours, Van Aldenhaag (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imago Therapy. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are the references with Steenberg not adequate? The farm has substantial historical value in terms of it being the first farm in the Constantia Valley region of Cape Town? I don't see why the references provided are not adequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRichie (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/L.C._Bates_Museum_at_Good_Will-Hinckley. You declined my article because the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notablity." Are these facts about the museum not sufficient to make it notable?

• 100 year old museum
• historically certified building, designed by a prominent Maine architect
• dioramas painted by a noted 20th century American Impresionist
• landscape was designed by The Olmstead Brothers

To indicate the notability of the museum, I added a "press coverage" section. Does that help?

You also suggested that I add citations. I tried to keep my submission short, and referenced each fact I listed. Can you more specifically identify what is lacking a citation.

Thanks again for your assistance. LCBates (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken on Austin Friars, London in the absence of the original nominator - could you please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Friars, London? Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A new hook has been proposed per your objections to prior ones; can you please see whether it's a good hook? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi thank you for reviewing the page and my submissions, the new references that I have added are directly from the govt of India websites stating that the foundation is working with the govt on the mid day meal initiatives... is this still not a valid or a reliable source?

also, not sure if you are aware, nic.in is a govt website like the .gov equivalent in India.

More over there are a number of other smaller NGO's (much smaller than Naik Foundation) listed on wikipedia with even lesser references, and I am not sure to how much more reliable sources should I provide?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.75.84.106 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Sionk. Many thanks for reviewing the article I recently submitted on Dr. Elizabeth Van Wie Davis. You mentioned in your review that the article required more reliable sources. Would you please clarify the sections that need more accurate sourcing? Thank you so much for your time!

Very Respectfully, Mattie (Je 1847) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Je 1847 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just read your post on the AFC talk page and I was wondering what you don't understand about the drive. I will be glad to answer any of your questions.--Dom497 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I expect it's geared towards encouraging new AfC reviewers rather than old timers like me! On the surface of things it seems to me quite complicated, the recording and monitoring processes. Once the first person starts the process rolling on Monday I'm sure it will begin to make sense. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the diligent tagging, but although it was i who created the article, i am not the one who added the copyrighted information. i believe the article was deleted in haste. --emerson7 18:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to this but I was down with the flu. Anyway ... I knew Thomas as I know several other well known and respected Cypriot poets and artists. I know it is difficult to accept that someone is notable if the sources are in another language. I have included one of three obituaries that outline Thomas' achievements. Unfortunately they are in Greek. He was a brave man as well as one reference talked of how Thomas picked up the flag from a fallen fellow student who was shot by the British during a demonstration - but I did not use it. It must be taken seriously that the fact that Thomas is mentioned and discussed in the book quoted on the History of Contemporary Cypriot Literature is very important. I photographed and included the passage that discussed Thomas' poetry. Those two writers obviously felt that Thoams' poetry was worth been included, discussed and praised. In some respects Thoams' was his own enemy as he was very modest about his achievements. I respectfully ask that this article be reconsidered for inclusion. Christos Evangeli ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christos Evangeli (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why an article on a person who won Mr South Africa 2012, will compete in an internaitonal competition, and was mentioned in a number of outlets failed? I don't understand.

Thanks. --Jethro B 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How does this affect me now? --Jethro B 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I got it now. --Jethro B 02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, if you've got any time could you offer some input over here, I've started a discussion on which subsequent use of Misha Bryan's name we should use in the article. —Jennie | ☎ 17:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sionk. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10