User talk:Csanctuary

Welcome

Hello Csanctuary and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knoch

Per your comments at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Articles for A. E. Knoch and the Concordant Publishing Concern, you might be interested to
See Adolph Ernst Knoch and de:Adolph Ernst Knoch. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam, I had a look at the article you created -- how did you become aware of the German article, if I may ask? Thanks very much indeed. Also, thanks for the references you added to the Concordant Version article. The neutrality of this article is disputed by a Wiki editor; I think it has to do with the part in the introduction where the Concordant Version is quoted on what distinguishes their work from that of others. I feel that this is essential in understanding what the objectives were in compiling the Version, and that the article itself doesn't draw any conclusions on whether the CPC achieved these objectives or not. What are your thoughts? --Csanctuary (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'becoming aware of the German article'... Into the search field (way on the left), I typed "Knoch" and hit GO, expecting to be taken to a disambiguation page similar to that for Macmillan. When I realized that "dab" hadn't yet been created, I threw one together (see diff). Later, I realized it's a German name and it occurred to me to search for notable Germans to include in the DAB. Its easy to do that, you just type in the same exact search box but use a prefix of "de:", so in this case I searched for "de:knoch". To my surpise, the very first item at the top of that German dab[1] is the person at issue.
Regarding Concordant Version... Like you, I don't believe the article Concordant Version deserves tags for tone, NPOV, or notability; its tag for references is (IMHO) still valid. However, at this time, I'm unprepared to champion the article. Frankly, a few good references would make all these controversies go away, and it seems they must exist SOMEWHERE. Do you know anyone with Lexis/Nexis or whatever it is? --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]