User talk:Sionk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Some advice

Sionk, I ran across an article you helped out with at Articles for Creation back in January and you found the topic not notable at that point. A few days ago the article, Wood Law Firm, was posted. Reviewing it for DYK, it didn't seem to pass the basic notability test for me based upon the sources provided (only one of which discusses the firm at all--and gets its info from the firm's website). I'm on the fence about AfDing it, would like to see if your initial opinion that "If it exists it's not at all obvious, so probably indicates non-notability" has changed at all. If not, I think I'll open a deletion discussion. Thanks (following any comments on this page). AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The article seems more about Randall K Wood than the law firm. The anews articles are about other lawyers/law firms. I can't see anything else online apart from directory listings. Sionk (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good to get another read on it. AfD filed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Eileen McGann article

Sionk, Thanks so much for your creating the Eileen McGann article from AfC and your significant work on it to improve it to "Start Class" standard. I was pretty frustrated with the AfC experience, so may take your suggestion with future articles to simply create them myself. (I'll sandbox them and ask advice from such as you, first, of course! ;-) ) I've been at work cleaning up the citations (even added a Welsh one for you!) and Categorizing. Any further suggestions or opinions would be appreciated. Spartan26 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Karl Michael

Hi. As you were a participant in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Michael, you might wish to provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Michael (2nd nomination) as the article was speedily renominated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Laurie Coots

Hello Sionk, Really appreciate you taking the time to review my submission. I made some edits, and added additional sources, more journalistic and relevant for Coots. Can you please take a look and let me know if it's sufficient. If not, I'm happy to research for more news articles.

Many thanks,

Basileviault (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sionk, Really appreciate you taking the time to answer and review my submission. I chatted with the help community, and we worked together for cleaning and adding sources. Then, I'm waiting for a picture approval (I sent the photographer a mail with this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries), and i'll forward it to "permissions@wikimedia.org" after. I'm still adding sources when I find relevant one, and keep increasing the submission thanks to your recommendation.

Many thanks,

Basileviault (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive Physiology

Sionk, thank you for your reviewer comment--it does make sense that Comprehensive Physiology should be included in the American Physiological Society's list of publications. While I am working on that, I thought I would share with you that Comprehensive Physiology is referred to in one of our Editor's entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Garland,_Jr. The instructions I followed for creating pages for Academic Journals discouraged us from including lists of Editors, or I could have put this link in before. Does this bit of indormation help? Margaretreich (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Erika Winters, hi Sionk need support!

Hi Sionk, thanks for your comments on Erika Winters document, I did change some references on the document, seems that there is a perception issue here since I went to the on line live help and the person who helped me told me that the references were OK, please note that some are form Erika’s Web page which shows the actual printout of the Magazine or Newspaper since they are no longer in line. I would appreciate your support on advising which reference is no valid for you so I can either delete it or se how can I improve it. Your punctual comments will be appreciated. Thanks, Daniel

--Levana2013 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article decline

Hi Sionk, I submitted this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Renana_Peres. She is a well known researcher in the marketing field. My article was rejected on grounds that my sources were not reliable. The sources I used were books, internet articles that were written about her studies and research papers. I had gone over many wiki articles of academic scholar and did not find even one that didn't contain sources which consist of material published by the scholar or her research team. Still, I have provided several reliable and authentic sources. What other corrections should be done in terms of the references? I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out the problematic refrences. Thanks Docki2013 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docki2013 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Question on Patricia Brown

Hi Sionk! I just had a question on your comment on the Patricia Brown article I submitted last week. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Patricia_Brown#Wayne-Westland_School_Board_.281993-1997.29)

You mentioned that none of the sources were about Patricia Brown. While one of the sources was not about her (the one about the college chancellor) all of the other sources do mention her by either her name "Patricia" or her nickname Trish. I had someone from the wiki live chat take a look at it and they were confused by your comment as well and said that I should reach out to you for clarification.

I also added more sources and realized that I forgot to include the page numbers for my offline newspaper articles and added those as well. I also removed a couple of sentences that were not directly related to Patricia Brown, like the sentence about the college chancellor.

I appreciate any guidance you can give me - I am new to this!

Adamzien (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Key

Dear Sionk - I wrote to you a couple of times last week (regards the additions I made to the page)but I didn't hear back (which is fine as there is no great rush) However, I can't find any reference to the messages I sent you anywhere now so I am unsure you received these or where I go from here. Apologies, I'm new to all this & find it pretty bewildering at times to be honest! Just a brief outline of the requirements now needed would be great - thanks - Rob JeffersonWSoiwittaya (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk - just added 3 references (citations?)for evidence of place & year of exhibitions - as requested on the page. I imagine that's enough but if you require more please let me know - Thanks - Rob JeffersonWSoiwittaya (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article yesterday. I'm sure if any other editors have a problem with it, they'll let you know. As I've said several times, any grand claims need to be reliably sourced. Reliable sources aren't the gallery that represents him - they're interested in promoting him and his work. Sionk (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Claudia Milne

Hello I just resubmitted the above article. I have removed most of the newspaper citations and made it much shorter. It is the first wikipedia entry I have made so I much appreciate your feedback. DMW21 Dmw21 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's golden rule of notability. You'll need to prove she was widely known and important by adding reliable, journalistic (or expert book) sources that talk about her in some depth. My understanding of the film making process is the producers are the managers that make sure things happen. The creative leaders are the directors, writers and actors, who usually get the publicity and (justly) the credit for the product. I wish you luck finding relaible coverage about her! Sionk (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Medio Article Decline

Hello Sionk,

That's for your comment about news article coverage regarding notability. Is the problem that the sources are too tech specific? If so what advice can you give me to fix that? If most of the sources are tech specific do I just wait until the company is referenced is other news?

Any advice on how to improve the article would be much appreciated.Winvite (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea I'm afraid. Wikipedia is has tough standards that commercial organizations need to meet - outlined in WP:NCORP. Almost all companies will have some sort of mention in speciliast interest websites and publications. The objective is to prove they are more than ordinary and have reached wider notice. Sionk (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Parsons Paris Clarification

Hello Sionk,

I hope that my last comment on the Parsons Paris (2013) talk page cleared up some of the confusion. Do you need any additional documents to support the claims made?

Thank you. mickeyallen 14:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyallen (talk • contribs)

Question about article decline

Hi Sionk, I submitted this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Renana_Peres. She is a well known researcher in the marketing field. My article was rejected on grounds that my sources were not reliable. The sources I used were books, internet articles that were written about her studies and research papers. I had gone over many wiki articles of academic scholar and did not find even one that didn't contain sources which consist of material published by the scholar or her research team. Still, I have provided several reliable and authentic sources. What other corrections should be done in terms of the references? I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out the problematic refrences. Thanks Docki2013 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your feedback on my article about Russ P. Reeder.

Hi Sionk, Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article I submitted about Russ P. Reeder. I was wondering whether the edits I made were OK.

Weirdly enough, another reviewer (Woona) just sent me a message about an article about a "Shaun McCarthy" that I never wrote. Not sure what that's about.

Thanks in advance, Pascale --PascaleMarchand (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

women painters

Hi Sionk. To answer your question, "Is there any reason you're emptying the categories for British women painters" -- yes, there is. It's my understanding of the categorization guidelines that categorizing painters by gender is not desirable, because gender is not objectively relevant to that activity. There's no inherent skill advantage to either gender. Neither can you choose any canvas at random and identify the gender of the artist. Keeping women painters in their own categories arguably perpetuates a second-class status. All that said, I can see the other side of the argument, and the last thing I want is to descend into a pointless bout of wiki-lawyering. In good faith and good humor -- --Lockley (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

sam pepper edit

Dear Sionk is there a reason as to why you keep making edits to a page i have created? there is no copyright or anything else that would warrent you making a redirect on that pageKeishlap (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Keishla Keishlap (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Keishla

The Sam Pepper article has been created before and discussed by the Wikipedia community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Pepper. The consensus decision was to remove the article and redirect it to the Big Brother article, because Pepper was not notable outside of the TV show. Unless he has done something major since 2011 to attract media attention, there's no justification to recreate the article. He has a brief biography on the List of Big Brother 11 housemates (UK) (which as you know you've tried to remove on three ocasions). Sionk (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He has done a lot of major things since 2011. That was two years ago. If you took the time to read the page instead of just redirecting it you would have known.Keishlap (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)keishla

Believe me, I read the page, there was nothing new since 2011. Most of the article was about statistics taken directly from his social media pages. Sionk (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Sionk! You're receiving The AFC and Teamwork Barnstars because you reviewed 208 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Parsons Paris Update

Good morning. Just a friendly reminder that I have updated the Parsons Paris (2013) Wiki talk page. Commenting on the subject that was posted on the Paris College of Art talk page recently. Thank you.mickeyallen 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyallen (talk • contribs)

DYK for Edna S. Purcell House

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry investigation of you has been opened

You may want to comment in your defense.

A courtesy notice from Albiet (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Well, I can't see one! Which one of your friends has opened it? Sionk (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, found it, at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Albiet. Sionk (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

William Lupien bio

Hi Sionk, In your rejection of the subject bio, you mention that the references refer more to Lupien's businesses than to him personally. Most of the reference articles that appeared in trade magazines are quite biographical in nature, citing his reputation and accomplishments as an innovator in electronic trading as the reason for the widespread industry interest in the business. Indeed, the businesses mentioned in these articles, both Instinet and OptiMark, were inseparably identified with Lupien at their time of publication, as he was the one who brought them to prominence. Lupien is pictured personally, sometimes multiple times, in each of these articles. I might also mention that Instinet has a Wikipedia entry, and Lupien is mentioned several times in that entry. As the person who performed the first electronic trade in history and who introduced the first electronic trading system to be widely used in securities markets (Instinet), Lupien is very well known within this industry. Would it be sufficient to point out these notable accomplishments in the Intro paragraph? 97.118.136.218 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is these claims of importance are not reliably sourced (or sourced at all). The claims are already in your draft article, but they are unsourced so will not convince anyone! The sources in the article are about his businesses (and the subject of the article should be Lupiens, not his businesses). Sionk (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony White submission - request for more advice

Hi Sionk, Thanks for reviewing the entry on Anthony White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_White I have included in the article all sources related to this artist that I can find, including one from the Australian Financial Review. In all I have referenced 10 sources, including respected artistic critique and industry bloggers, as well as the aforementioned Australian Financial Review. I'm unsure how these sources might not be reliable. Can you please advise? This is my first post (!), so have I incorrectly cited references or how are they not reliable in your opinion? I look forward to your response. Cheers Creativeforrest (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I made changes to the article as per your advice over a week ago and sent for resubmission. It still hasn't been looked at and I understand it may take up to 3 weeks. But, I wonder if you could have a look or at least respond to my original post, as I see you have been active on a couple of occasions. Maybe you've missed my original talk post as you seem to have responded to everyone else that's contacted you. Cheers Creativeforrest (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Cymrodor (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated "Stuart Crystal (Jewelry)"

Sionk: I have edited the article draft "Stuart Crystal (Jewelry)" by adding a few extra reliable sources and trying to link an image from the Victoria and Albert Museum; however, I am new to Wikipedia page-making and I could not figure out how to add images correctly. Please review the article draft again at your convenience. There is very little information available on the web about these historically significant jewels and even if this article is created only as a stub, I believe it will be of great help to historians and collectors. 97.93.242.141 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.242.141 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You've helped lots!!

Hi Sionk, You have given me lots of advice, comments, edits, etc and they have all been helpful. I did a major rewrite of the article, in fact, based on your suggestions. I'm about to hit the send for review button...if you have a chance please give it a look again. I hope i have it right this time but would rather know I don't early in the process. Thanks again for the time you've put in.....gonna send it now! GMarin 11:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Article on Mike Shub

Dear Sionk,

I want to tahnk you for the time you dedicated to reading the article I proposed on the mathematician Mike Shub. Your criticism was certainly appropriate since I did not include references enough to justify the importante of that researcher. Mike Shub is a very noted mathematician (indeed, there are articles about him already in the French and German wikipedias) whose work has been cited over 2500 times and he has some extremely important articles. I have tried to point that out more efficiently in the new version of the article, including for example includes pointers to concepts already present in Wikipedia as the Blum-Blum-Shub pseudorandom number generator.

Of course, it may happen that I have not yet got to reflect correctly proff. Shub's importance as a mathematician and computer scientist, partly due to the fact that English is not my native language.

Thanks for helping me to improve the quality of the article, that I will soon resubmit. Best regards,

Beltranc (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

beltranc

Your English is excellent! Unfortunately I can't see much improvement in your draft article. The information is almost all cited to publications by Shub. We need to see trustworthy secondary sources about him and/or his work. For example, when you say he introduced an important theory, don't cite this to Shub's paper which (allegedly) introduced the theory; cite it to an independent source which proves this claim. We need to see independent sources about him. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Sionk. Now, 5 out of the 10 articles in the references are independent papers by other scientists from different areas as cryptology (reference [6]), dynamical systems ([4]), computer science ([8], [9]) and computational complexity ([11]). There are plenty of references to Michael Shub's work (not much mathematicians have been cited over 2500 times in research articles), but I do not know how many references to include. Should I include sentences from those references saying specifically "such paper by Shub is important"? I have not found similar sentences in other wiki articles about mathematicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_mathematicians), probably because it is too flattering, but I can do so if you consider that it is necessary to justify the importance of this researcher. Thanks! Beltranc (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC) beltranc

Allard Hall

Hello Sionk Thank you very much for approving the "AllardHall" page. When you approved it you left a marking that some of the citations were not done clearly. I have made corrections to these but the marking is still up. I was just wondering if I just need to be patient wait a bit longer, or if there is something else that needs to be done. Many thanks,Jonalumni (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The citations didn't explain what they were. If the online link gets moved or broken in the future we'd be left with no idea what they were. Now you've added names and dates it's much improved. Sionk (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

St Teilo's

Thanks for your help with this. I didn't have much time to work on it last night so it's good to see such a big improvement so quickly! Deb (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a nice little article, well done! Sionk (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rutvik Oza

Hello! I would recommend you to just take a look at Wikipedia talk:Rutvik Oza. Oza is a filmfare award winning writer for Udaan (see http://www.movieplus.com/article-details/anurag-kashyap-redefining-indian-cinema-615/ and http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/14375-8.html). He has also penned hit movies including Satyagraha (see http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/satyagraha-food-for-thought-for-fastfood-generation/article5079201.ece and http://in.bookmyshow.com/entertainment/satyagraha-film-review/25490). So, I wish you could look into the matter yet again. Thank you! PartheshPatel (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2013 (IST)

Rebuilt buildings category

• Is it really necessary?
• How do you define a "rebuilt" building?

Buildings that you have listed in this category include the Globe Theatre.... OK, that is a "rebuilt building". It is a building which had ceased to exist, and which was recreated.

You have also included St Paul's Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament.

These are not "rebuilt buildings". They are entirely different buildings, unlike the one previously on the site, and in neither case attempting to replicate the previous building. The name is the same as the earlier building. The function is the same or similar to that of the earlier building, but they are not "rebuilt' in the way that the Globe Theatre is.

So what do you have in mind? Are you planning to have every building listed that is not the original building of that name to occupy the site? Is this a category hat people need?

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Went to St Fagans today and took some more photos. Had a chat with the custodian in the church who had already spotted the new article and was quite encouraging. Will be adding more material in the next few days. Deb (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Amandajm, the "rebuilt buildings" category was not created by me, it's existed for 6 years! However, I noticed there were sufficient articles in the category to make a UK specific sub-category (similar to Germany, USA etc.). Houses of Parliament were already categorised as a rebuilt building. I agree, it could be interpreted quite widely, but I think they are valid categories all the same. However, if the new building is not the same purpose as the old building, personally I would not consider it had been rebuilt, but simply demolished. Sionk (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think that any building that has been built in an entirely different style on the same location, regardless of continuity of purpose, should be removed from the category. That leaves very few buildings.

• Globe Theatre
• Frauenkirche, Dresden
• Speyer Cathedral, of which at least 1/3 is rebuilding
• ?

(too busy to do anything about it at the moment

Amandajm (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Have it that way! I disagree with that use of the category, but it's not worth arguing over, in the light of other buildings that have already been included. Amandajm (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just read your Edit summary: "major rebuilding programme" strongly suggests it was rebuilt on the same site

The later building is on the same site. Of course it is. When churches are demolished, for what ever reason (burnt down, earthquake, war) then the later building is nearly always on the same site, and often with the altar exactly above the position of the earlier one, even if the building itself is larger. "Site" is not the issue here.

• In the case of the Globe Theatre, cited above, the building is a reconstruction of the original, as close as archaeology, and modern safety requirements permit.
• The Fruaenkirche, Dresden, was bombed during WWII. The present building reuses the same stone wherever possible, and attempts to replicate the original Baroque structure. It is truly a "rebuilding".
• Speyer Cathedral was severely damaged by invading troops and about 1/3 of the building destroyed by fire. A few years later (in the 1700s) an architect rebuilt most of the destroyed section, retaining its medieval form, and changing only the facade to a more contemporary style. Since then, on the evidence of drawings, the 18th century facade has been demolished and a 19th century version of the original has been put in place. Thus it is possible to call much of the building a "rebuilding".

On the other hand, although the word "rebuilt" is commonly used ("the church was entirely rebuilt in the 18th century") what this actually implies is that an entirely new building was constructed on the site of the old one, or that the ancient church was at least partly demolished and underwent a significant change of style, or extension.

This, then, includes almost every cathedral that you could think of, and perhaps 75% of all the parish churches of England which have undergone significant building programs since they were begun.

If you are going to include "reconstructed in a different style at the same location", then get busy, because you have hundreds of buildings to include.

For this reason, I think that buildings that have been reconstructed in an entirely different manner ought to be removed. Otherwise, the category is so widely inclusive as to be unnecessary.

If it is to be inclusive, then it certainly isn't the sort of category that a historian, or architectural historian would find useful.

Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, since St Paul's is the issue, the present structure in no way reproduces the cathedral that previously stood on that site. It was an entirely new design of the late 1600s. Likewise, when the Pope decided to "rebuild" St Peter's in Rome, the ancient cathedral was demolished (bit by bit) to make way for the new. Same site, but nothing whatsoever alike. Amandajm (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the history of St Paul's Cathedral - it was famously rebuilt to a design by Wren. You seem to be taking a very narrow interpretation of 'rebuilt'. There's no suggestion buildings have to be exact duplicates. Sionk (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

help

Hi, can you help me with some specifics to improve my article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jon_Bunch thanks Akf77 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Hello Sionk, you left me a message on my talk page saying my article Joe Russell has been declined. However, I did not write the article. Therefore, I have deleted that message and copy-pasted it on the talk page of its original author. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Strange isn't it, you made one edit to the draft and the AfC script suddenly thinks you're the author, argh!! Sionk (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined: Seventeen

Thank you for reviewing my page. I have a question about your reason for declination. (This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.) I used an adequate amount of sources for the size of my page. The sources I used are all reliable sources. Every single page related to kpop has at least one source from allkpop. (Girls' Generation, Super Junior, EXO...and the list goes on) The last reviewer (Apeace) told me that I needed sources for variety show and movie so I added them. Please tell me what I still need to work on or some many sources I still need to add and I will fix it. Thanks again!  SmileBlueJay97  talk  12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seventeen (band), it is mainly sourced to the allkpop.com fansite, which wouldn't be considered reliable or proof of notability. There are no claims of notability either - no successful music releases for example. You'll need to find some examples of journalistic news coverage about the group, or prove they've released music that has had success in the charts. Sionk (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Author Don M. Winn

Hello Sionk

Thank you for reviewing the article about Don M. Winn. This had been left as the reason for the article being declined: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

I have reviewed the wiki articles listed per the suggestion for improvement. I am at a loss as to how Mr. Winn fails to meet each of the parameters set out within the articles for creation that were cited. They are as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals- 1. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Mr. Winn has had reviews of his work in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews which are referenced in the article. 2. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Mr. Winn has won significant critical attention receiving several national and international awards which are referenced within the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books) 1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]

Mr. Winn has had reviews of his work in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews which are referenced in the article.

2. The book has won a major literary award.

Mr. Winn has won significant critical attention receiving several national and international awards which are referenced within the article.

I am not quite certain how I am able to further improve this article. As far as I am able to ascertain it meets all the parameters set out in the wiki articles for creation approval, please advise. Sylviamerrick (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced at all any of the above is true. Your article is cited to something called 'Paramus Post' (which looks like a website that puts up press releases) and a book lovers website. Neither of these show any sign of being reliable journalistic news sources. I'd hardly describe the 'Indie Reader Discovery Award' as a major award either. If any of the above is true, you'll need to add the information to the article and cite some convincing sources to verify it. Sionk (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Cardiff Meetup

Hi Sion and bore da! I mention a Cariff Wikimeet here. It would be good to meet up. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for review - Sam Carter (musician)

I'm sorry, but I would not describe the Guardian, Independent and BBC websites as "promotional". I have sourced a couple more references which I hope meet your criteria and resubmitted the article. I agree with Robin Denselow (who has been writing about and reviewing folk and roots-based music for forty years and who knows what he's talking about) that this guy "has all the makings of a major contender". Please note that I have no personal or professional connection with the artist - I only saw him for the first time at this year's Shrewsbury Folk Festival in August, but I too have been reviewing and writing about music for over ten years and he impresses me hugely. I think he deserves a place in Wikipedia.Giglister (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Matthew Waldman

Hello Sionk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Matthew Waldman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Jane Stephens

Thanks for your feedback on the Jane Stephens article. Regarding the link to the 'Some Irish Naturalists', it's organised alphabetically so she is listed under Jane Scharff (but can be found by searching under Stephens) in the 'L to S' sections - the same as Robert Francis Scharff. I followed the citation format that had been used in his article. About her notability, I'm surprised that she would not be deemed suitable as her husband Robert Francis Scharff appears with a similar level of detail and citation, and other naturalists she would have been a contemporary with e.g. Denis Robert Pack-Beresford. She would have a similar length works section to Pack-Beresford if you think that would be suitable to add it? I happen to know that there is a detailed article in press about her in the Irish Naturalist Journal which is quite explicit about her importance as an Irish zoologist - would waiting until this is published strengthen the case for her inclusion on Wikipedia? Smirkybec (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback notice

Hello. You have a new message at Arxiloxos's talk page.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chartist Mural, Newport

I did think about creating it as a new article but decided not to - anyway, I'm OK with what you've done. Are you going to put it up at WP:DYK? - not something I'd usually suggest, but may be worthwhile in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to nominate it for DYK. I realise the clock is ticking but I was planning to wait a couple of days to make sure it didn't become an editing battleground, considering the events are very recent! Sionk (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Incidentally, I think the position is that, in 2007, it was proposed that it would be demolished in 2009 - [1] Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Same difference, I guess :) The news source used says 2009. Actually I remember seeing recently a 2007 quote from the Council leader saying the mural should be protected from demolition, so the issue was obviously alive at that time. Maybe the sentence just needs rewording. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. How about "...that public protests failed to stop the destruction of a 200,000 piece mosaic mural in Newport, Wales, installed to commemorate the Chartist rising of 1839?" Not very punchy, I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sionk (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Michaels article

Sionk, Thank you so much for your valuable feedback on this article. I have added some links from other Wikipedia articles using the "suggested links" tool. I also added a citation for this fact as you requested: "Smalley’s “Trio for Violin, Cello, and Piano” (1990–91), commissioned by the Melbourne International Chamber Music Competition, bears the dedication “To Geoffrey Michaels.”[9]" (As you can see, that citation is now endnote #9) You also added "citation needed" after the sentence "Michaels currently lives in the Philadelphia area." Could you please suggest what sources could provide an appropriate citation for that kind of fact (i.e., current residence of a living person)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beverly2m (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Lady Pansy Lamb

Yes, the Betjeman poem was also my first thought. But the DYK hook is only around for a fleeting moment, I don't think it greatly matters. Moonraker (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Chartist Mural

Could you keep an eye on Newport City Council? The campaign group are making persistent efforts to insert POV details (ungrammatically), so it could do with some extra eyes on it. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

They proudly mentioned their additions to the article, via Facebook, so I was aware of the edits. Quite amusing really, but I'm sure there are plenty of people watching that article who will have a different opinion! Sionk (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm rapidly approaching 3RR and about to log off, so.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Fortunately it looks like Pigsonthewig has taken over the job. Bit cheeky of them to accuse you of breaking 3RR rule - evidently whoever is behind these new accounts knows quite a bit about Wikipedia rules! Sionk (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts at Talk:Newport City Council. As I say, if I'm in a minority, so be it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk. I must admit that I thought what you added last there was pretty reasonable. Nobody yet knows the significance of this one event in the longer term. But (with the help of YT and FB, naturally) you don't often see the people of Newport getting so agitated. I do hope some good will come of it all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Family sections at the start of biography articles

In regards to you edit on John Scott (died 1533). You are not alone in this see User talk:NinaGreen#Family sections at the start of biography articles and other comment I have left on her talk page. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission Awkward Moment

Dear Sionk, You declined my article, "Awkward Moment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Awkward_Moment) because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I added more information and 2 additional citations, bringing the total to 7 citations for a relatively short article. Is that sufficient to make the article publishable? Is there anything else I should do? Thanks, Foreveryoung93 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not the number of sources that is the problem. It is quality not quantity we need. Sources need to be reliable, of journalistic quality (like newspapers, books or academic journals) and talk about the subject in some depth. The Dartmouth Now news source barely mentions "Awkward Moment", therefore I can't see any proof the game is widely known and/or important. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Smith decline

Hi, Could you provide some guidance to the third party sources.

I used Australian newspapers, published industry journals and government authorised third party organisations in my referencing. AS well as a teritery college with government recognition in Australia.

Not sure how to go any further. Looking forward to your assistance XelF2cphotography (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained fairly comprehensively what was needed, when I declined the article. The only news source is in a very local newspaper which bars unregistered access to its online version. There is also some extremely promotional language which needs removing. I don't know what else to say. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks and I am sorry I missed seeing your comments previously - I was on my phone and didnt scroll down enough.

The Australian Professional Photography site I have referenced is the only professional registered organisation in Australia - the awards were listed giving page details and photos number on the submission - how else do you suggest I prove the awards. If the site does not allow for online access free to air - could you suggest what I do as the information is definitely available but you ahve to pay. Also I have a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister in Australia advising that the book was given to the then prime minister. Can I send this to you so you can confirm it.

Thanks againF2cphotography (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Red Links

I think I now understand why my "fixing" of a red link keeps getting reverted (by you and others)--so editors can easily get a list of missing pages from suggestbot, etc. What's the best way to avoid creation of duplicate stubs associated with a red link? How will editors (and suggestbot) know that there's a user-space stub on MK Guth can be reused to create an article? Hobsonlane (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Out of Athens

How is the film non-notable? Why would the film not meet notability standards? I provided reception; is that not enough? It might not meet WP:GNG, but it could meeet WP:NFILMS. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it could do, but it doesn't at the moment based on the current draft. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? Based on the number of reviews cited, and the awards won, I'm inclined to agree with George's assertion that this film meets notability criteria. DS (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Then move it to main space yourself. There's only one reliable review I can see, and the awards are cited to something called the Gay Erotic Video Index (I'm not sure how reliable that is either). Sionk (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No need; I re-expanded the article and resubmitted it. You don't have to re-review it, but I really want to notify you. George Ho (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chartist Mural

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nantclwyd Hall

I think it's still a stub because it's extremely short. There might be an article published somewhere about the inside as well, but I haven't found it. By the way, would you be able to help me expand Albert Naylor-Leyland, 2nd Baronet's and Vivian Naylor-Leyland, 3rd Baronet's pages? We need more citations...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles about the aristocracy don't really float my boat, sorry. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Don Bowden declined

Hi. I am happy to comply with any suggestions or requirements you have to include a Don Bowden page. I submitted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Don_Bowden which you declined for lack of references. I found what I believed to be the most authoritative references available but since you are not satisfied with them I am asking for guidance. It is not clear to me whether you are rejecting it because you believe the references do not verify what is said in the article or you do not think the subject merits his own wikipedia page. You said:

Comment: Well, you would think he would be very well known, but the references suggest breaking the 4-miunte barrier was the only thing he did of any note. Sionk (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is my submitted text: Donald Paul "Don" Bowden was the first American to break the four-minute mile. Bowden attended high school in San Jose, California where he was a star 880 runner, then entered the University of California, Berkeley where he again specialized in the 880. Despite having previously run only a few full mile races, on June 1, 1957 in Stockton, California Bowden clocked a 3:58.7 in the mile, setting a new American record. He also ran on a world-record-setting 4 x 880 team for Cal and represented the U.S. in the 1956 Olympic Games. After college he helped develop the Tartan track, the first artificial running surface. He was inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame in 2008. References

   http://trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/component/content/article/13-lists/1476-tafn-us-sub-400-milers
   http://www.wikirun.com/Don_Bowden
   http://www.usatf.org/HallOfFame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=230

I disagree that the references suggest all he did was break the 4-minute mile. First of all, even if that were true, being the American to break such an important record should be enough to merit his own page in my opinion. The 4-minute mile is iconic in its importance in American sports. It even has its own page on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-minute_mile). I have seen many long wikipedia pages on athletes of much less note, especially pro football, baseball, and basketball players. However the U.S. Track and Field page, which is linked to as a reference, makes clear that being the first to break the record is not all that he accomplished. He was was the national outdoor 880 champion in 1957 - the very best in the country. He was also the third best in the world that year. He held the American record in the mile for three years as shown by the Track and Field News link. He was on the world-record setting 4x880 relay team as shown in the usatf.com page reference. He was on the American Olympics team in 1956. His college mile record for U. California stood for 50 years, as shown on the wikirun referenced page. He has been inducted into the Track and Field Hall of Fame. In addition to his accomplishments as an athlete on the field, after graduation as a chemist he invented the Tartan synthetic track surface (shown both on the usatf reference page and on the wikirun page) the first such surface and a standard for the sport for years. He was a scholar athlete. This too is a very significant accomplishment I believe. If the problem is with a view he is not sufficiently noteworthy, then I could include all these accomplishments on the page, but I tried to keep it simple.

If the issue is that you do not believe the representations are documented, I can provide many more links that you can view yourself. A simple Google or Bing search will turn up dozens that say basically the same things, but I felt that nothing is better than the USATF site, and I included two more that confirm the representations there. That is the best authority there is for track and field and is recognized by wikipedia as such already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Track_%26_Field). Bowden is already mentioned in wikipedia in a list on the page on the USATF Hall of Fame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Track_and_Field_Hall_of_Fame) so I don't think there is any grounds for disbelieving the representations or thinking them to be exaggerated or unsupported by the links. I can include these wikipedia links on the Bowden page if you like. I just don't know what you are looking for. Don Bowden was a great athlete and contributor to the sport of track and field who should have at least a short page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.79.175 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice he had participated in the 1956 Olympic Games. Participation at the Olympic Games definitely confers notability on athletes. As I said in my comment, I would have thought breaking the US 4-minute mile would be notable, but the proof in your draft article was weak. Other wiki articles, such as wikirun, are poor sources because like Wikipedia they are created by various users.

If you resubmit the article to Articles for Creation I will move it to main article space for you. Sionk (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I went back and clicked the resubmit then Save, which I think is sufficient. I did not make any changes. I am not familiar with using wikis so pardon me if I did it wrong. Please let me know if it is not shown as resubmitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.79.175 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of academia

Re: This edit:

While everyone, including academics, would like to believe they are neutral, when big money or the race for big money is involved neutrality can be compromised. The main place where academic research may be considered "not independent" is if the author of the paper or its institution is or would be financially rewarded if the results of the research were put into practical use. In some cases, such as when the lead author of a paper is also a principal of a major company in a closely-related industry or the author or his institution owns high-dollar-value patents related to the research, the need to presume non-neutrality is obvious. In other cases it's not obvious and WP:AFG towards the paper's author may override trying to determine if the paper is reliable.

You can't depend on journals to do a perfect job of weeding out bias either. Some lesser-known journals don't have the same high standards as, say, The Lancet, but even the well-known journals can be fooled or simply drop the ball from time to time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, neither are newspapers neutral on many occasions, but these sources (newspapers, books, magazines, academic papers) are the best measure we have to establish the importance of a subject. We make a judgement call. Most published/peer reviewed academic papers should be neutral enough for establishing notability. Sionk (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Charles Corm

--Charlescorm (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Hi, since you refused my submission of Corm Capital despite me giving you what I believe to be way enough sources and references, would you please have the decency to kill the following link that embarrassingly appears on Google's first page when searching for "Corm Capital": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlescorm‎

It is causing me major problems since EVERYBODY can read what I assumed to be a private discussion between me and Wikipedia!

Thanks to revert ASAP as this is damaging my company's reputation.

Regards, Charles Corm

PS: your comment that I wrote the article myself as CEO making it a "no go" is ridiculous. I happen to write very well and spent 10 hours compiling references and sources for nothing! What? You would have accepted it had my PR executive written it?

Please KILL the link

--Charlescorm (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Hi, since you refused my submission of Corm Capital despite me giving you what I believe to be way enough sources and references, would you please have the decency to kill the following link that embarrassingly appears on Google's first page when searching for "Corm Capital": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlescorm‎

It is causing me major problems since EVERYBODY can read what I assumed to be a private discussion between me and Wikipedia!

Thanks to revert ASAP as this is damaging my company's reputation.

Regards, Charles Corm

PS: your comment that I wrote the article myself as CEO making it a "no go" is ridiculous. I happen to write very well and spent 10 hours compiling references and sources for nothing! What? You would have accepted it had my PR executive written it?

I see someone has already given you some suggestions on your talk page. Sionk (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15