User talk:Soniamaddox

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Soniamaddox, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Lyle Chan have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Margaret Court

I completely disagree with those dictionary definitions, but then again I'm at odds with a lot of things when it comes to English linguistics—even as a native speaker; I won't even begin to get into the subject of language reforms.. ;-) With that said, I don't mind if anyone reverts my Margaret Court edit. I mainly do drive-by edits across random articles wherever I see clunky usage of "retired"/"former". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Syrowski (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

5 of the references checked randomly don't even mention him?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Syrowski and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Soniamaddox, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong

Thank you for reviewing the latest Tom Syrowski article.

I note your comment that "5 of the references checked randomly don't even mention him?”.

In fact, citations Nos 4-11 were simply to prove the assertions that the #1 charting albums were just that: #1 charting albums. Therefore, there need be no expectation for these references to mention Syrowski.

These same albums are listed in his discography hosted at the industry reference website Allmusic (citation no.1).

By the way, the subject is completely unknown to me personally. I came across a deleted Wikipedia article on him, and in casually researching the subject I reached the conclusion that it was deleted because of form and content, not because the subject is not notable. In my opinion, the subject fulfils Wikipedia’s criteria for notability.

I do grant that his notability is not conventional because audio engineers are “behind the scenes” people, unlike artists who are likelier to get newspaper articles and so on. However, the combination of his high-profile work (Super Bowl), repeatedly working with top industry artists over decades, and a nomination for an industry award cumulatively weighs the subject on the side of notability.

What's even more interesting is that I discovered about 30 articles in Wikipedia, all entries on music albums, that list Syrowski as the engineer. (Go do the search, it's revealing.) I would be handy to be able to links all those mentions to a Wiki Syrowski article.

Would you mind if I asked you to reconsider your decision?

Thank you. Soniamaddox (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of him in reliable sources independent of him, at the moment I can see no in depth coverage at all and the fact that there are #1 charting albums is not really relevant if he's not mentioned in the sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I (very respectfully!) disagree. If you were to say this is a borderline case of notability, I would agree and as I stated, the weight falls on the side of notability. There are sources that name the albums he's engineered, and other sources that name those same albums as No.1 charting albums. Taken as a whole, the references add up to an acceptable case of notability. In my opinion, the fact that not every reference mentions him is not a criterion by which to dismiss those references altogether. Or perhaps you're saying that this constitutes something too close to original research, without actually being original research? While I understand the guidelines of Wikipedia when read as letter-of-the-law, I think there is a common-sense approach that must always work alongside. What's the best way forward from here: would it be appropriate to get a third opinion? Thanks once again. Soniamaddox (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree, but they are the guidelines within which we edit Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG. The fact that he has engineered the albums does not make him notable, notability is established by in depth coverage of HIM in independent sources. You could resubmit and allow another reviewer to have a look, but it's quite an objective decision based on Wikipedia guidelines so I would be very surprised if another reviewer felt differently . Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I understand that doing numerous notable things does not automatically make the person himself notable to Wikipedia. I'll abandon the article as I have no attachment to the subject. As we say, if the subject is truly important, someone else will pop up. Soniamaddox (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Soniamaddox. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A page you started (AIDS Memoir Quartet) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating AIDS Memoir Quartet, Soniamaddox!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your creation -- hope you return. Lead has some issues (see MOS:LEAD), since it should summarise the body

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tom Syrowski

Hello, Soniamaddox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tom Syrowski".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 02:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me!

I really appreciate you taking the time to help me with my WiKi JustinClassic1 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey John Davies moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Geoffrey John Davies, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Geoffrey John Davies

Hello, Soniamaddox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Geoffrey John Davies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Geoffrey John Davies

Hello, Soniamaddox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Geoffrey John Davies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]