User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2011

This page contains archived discussions up to the end of 2011.
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Fair use rationale for File:Sjofn.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sjofn.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for instructing me. I have added a standard album art fair use rationale.

File copyright problem with File:Win coll notions 3 beetleites page 110.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Win coll notions 3 beetleites page 110.jpg. (Copyright rationale added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Clough
Thanks for your additions to the Clough page. I agree that these are certainly two of his most popular short poems (and deserving of note, but I would also include the Easter poem). Not sure if the reference to current medical debates should be included without some reference. Also, why the Who question relative to students of meter? This is becoming fairly standard usage, I believe, because of the number of poetry readers who are unfamiliar with poetic meter. And, frankly, Clough's hexameters were controversial (Matthew Arnold comments on it), but the whole sentence really needs a reference. Mddietz (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Either I am missing it or there is no mention of Clough on the xref page. I think it should have a specific ref on this page. That and I worry that we are too fast to put in obscure current information at the expense of producing a full and well realized article. And the "by whom's" seem to do the job, shall we remove the who? as irrelevant; nothing at all wrong with the term students of metre and we may send some off looking for a source for that term rather than for the source of these opinions (most of this I suspect is Encyclopedia Britannica). Mddietz (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Clover with his chloroform apparatus 1862.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Clover with his chloroform apparatus 1862.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image.

This was resolved in January 2011. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Clover portable regulating ether inhaler 1877.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Clover portable regulating ether inhaler 1877.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This was resolved in January 2011. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Robinson Thwaites
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robinson Thwaites, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/leisure/stage/5039910.Show_preview__Coronation_Street_stars_in_Blackburn.

There is no relationship between the new article and Coronation Street. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

Yes, the bot is wrong. I have freshly prepared the text and provided full references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission resolved with File:Paul Britten Austin portrait.jpg
Proof has now been given that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. The creator Rose Britten Austin has emailed you with full permission, and I am keeping a copy also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing talk pages
Wikipedia policy about editing talk pages is fairly strict. Editing one of your own contributions for obvious grammar or spelling errors (but not someone else's) is considered ok, but very little else is acceptable as an edit to a discussion page. You can't shorten discussions, remove or change any content from them (especially if it is a comment written by another editor) unless it is obvious vandalism, libelous, or similarly significantly problematic. Talk pages are meant to be a record of the discussions that actually took place. 99.192.78.232 (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Animal coloration
I really hate the dispute resolution process, so I'd like to end this before going there. You do realize that the primary goal of WP:ENGVAR is that only one spelling variation is permitted in an article (including within the article title)? If so, why do you keep restoring the spelling 'colour' to an article whose title uses 'color'? VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see your own talk page for detailed explanation. For the record, British English has both "colour" and "coloration": weird, I agree. But we love our language for its little quirks.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Monyaka
I don't understand. It has four very reliable references. What else is wrong with it?--90.217.236.107 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Monyaka.--90.217.236.107 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checked. I can't find anything either (even NME and their own record label has little on it). I'll re-submit it.--90.217.236.107 (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFC
Hi, I saw that you were reviewing some AFC submissions. there is a JavaScript tool at User talk:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js that helps to decline and accept submissions. It also add (after accepting) the page at the showcase and add the Template:WPAFC to the talkpage. Moreover it adds a comment of the requesters talkpage. If you need any help, we have also an IRC channel at freenode at. Regards, mabdul 15:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I'll give it a go. Never tried such a thing yet! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved a message of yours
Just to let you know, I moved an AFC rejection you left on my talk page to User talk:Marketengineer, who was actually the author of the submission. I got picked up as as the submitter due to fixing a reference in the article which triggered the submission template. Monty 845  16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

AfC submissions with Bare URLs
Hello Chiswick Chap, I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Capacitor Discharge Sintering. If you encounter bare urls in future you may be interested in RefLinks, a tool that largely assists with adding of full citations. If you need to cite books, RefTag is particularly helpful if you have a Google books url. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

John Jackson (businessman)
I approved the article. I was borderline when you declined it. Another editor tweaked it. I approved it. Hope that's okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's OK. I was not far off borderline myself, and had tweaked the article a bit while reviewing it too. I think it's probably still a bit self-publicising but the Wikipedians will surely tidy it up! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, your User page is amazing. Inspiring, in fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mount Manisty
I wonder if you might reconsider your delete opinion given the work that has been done on the article since nomination. Lady of  Shalott  16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What the Hel big
Please push the accept button on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grace Helbig (new submission) at your earliest convenience. Grace Helbig now unprotected. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and all! Lunferd (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations in Jonas Fjeld article
"two more songs co-written by Fjeld, When Morning Comes to America and Blue Hotel." I have the CD, and it lists Fjeld as a co-author. An article I linked to, Danko/Fjeld/Andersen, lists all authors for all songs on this CD. If you look at it, you will see that Fjeld, as I wrote, is listed as a co-author. What are you willing to accept as proof that he co-wrote these songs? Prescottbush (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. You must be referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonas Fjeld which was declined in the AfC process because it had no references. You are probably right that the existence of songs can be taken as read, given that the CD exists, so feel free to ignore that particular suggestion. The article however had no independent citations at the time of review - the rule is that all articles have to be notable, which in turn means they must have be verifiable by reliable independent sources - which in turn means not other Wikipedia articles, worse luck, and not sources connected to the subject of the article either. For a musician to be notable, it isn't enough to show they've created a CD; the principle is to show that the music has been received by the press. Please read WP:MUSIC for detailed guidance - I'm just trying to follow the (mass of) rules. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I cited a Los Angeles Times article confirming that the first Danko/Fjeld/Andersen was indeed received by the press. Prescottbush (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noticed. There is also Chicago Tribune and Acoustic Guitar which both seem impeccable sources for you to use. Please don't convince me, convince all Wikipedians in your article! With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added several cites, and made some factual corrections in the process. Prescottbush (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Oh, thank you so much! I'm really touched. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Chennathur Discussion
Hi Chiswick chap, I have added new sources to my article "Chennathur Village". Please verify again. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.17.46 (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aleksandar Markovic
Hello Chiswick Chap. I've added some missing citations. Could you check the artilce again, please? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance, Chiswick Chap. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Nick Berar
Hello Chiswick Chap. Could you please help me with neutrality? This is a bare bones submission intended as a stub...patterned after a source on T. Harv Eker. I don't know what I'm missing. Thanks Knightpm (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Nick. It is not forbidden but considered unwise to submit an article on oneself or one's own business - it is hard to take an objective, neutral standpoint. Much the best thing is to let somebody else do it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia the tone should be cool, calm and (erm) encyclopedic, and everything that's said should be supported by reliable third-party evidence (i.e. not you, not Wikipedia). As for this article, the AfC process does rather militate against stubs; at the least there should be a justifiable statement of what the subject is, with one or two citations. But frankly a bit more context does make it easier for reviewers to make their minds up. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Chiswick Chap.

I'm not Nick :) I don't know how to prove that one to you...but I'd be happy to try. So let's address what I'm missing again. The sources are no different than what exist in the stub for T Harv Eker (which has been published in wikipedia). The publisher of the book is no longer active...so obviously I can't go there. The book does have an ISBN and is referenced by other sites as having existed. It was produced before ebooks existed so no pdfs or electronic excerpts are available. His work is referenced by someone who has used it in the past in a public archive.  Those citations are in the article submitted.

I took a lot of context out of previous articles for "neutrality" sake. What else should I do?

Thanks Leslie (author of Powerful Women They're Not Men in Drag <-- best proof I can offer...the book exists) Knightpm (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Leslie, I'm not the whole of Wikipedia with its mass of policies, rules and guidance. All I can tell you is that you'll need to prove the subject is notable, and is adequately supported. Please read the notability guidelines Notability and the verifiability guidelines Verifiability. If you want to see what works well, go and look at the best articles on Wikipedia. For a random well-written biography, look at, say Stephen Hawking. If you want to know why the reviewers are tired, look at the backlog! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Chiswick Chap. I've read the guidelines and don't see what is missing. I consider T. Harv Eker no more notable than others and no less...the essence of neutral. The "proof" that is offered in his stub does not seem to constitute proof based on the notability guidelines (nor is the proof offered for Berar necessarily less). It appears that the reviewer had personal knowledge of T. Harv Eker, so the submission passed.

You're a volunteer. I get it. I understand you're tired. I am too.

I'll keep at it. We do need some equity in the application of the policy. If the entry for Eker can pass, so should others. Knightpm (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

SMA OpCon Submission
Hi and thanks for editing my submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SMA_OpCon). I understand your 'advertising' criticism, but I am very concerned that there doesn't seem to be any 'equality' with applying these rules. I modeled my submission after other submissions that have been accepted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMS_Scheduler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveBatch , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC4 , for example. What is the 'secret sauce' that those pages have that my submission lacks? Thanks for your help!! Neville.kroeger (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Consistency is a huge problem, and we all try our best. In this case, I could also have indicated that the submission was lacking reliable, external references - neither Wikipedia, nor sources connected with the subject, and that would certainly have caused me to decline the submission in its current form. I suggest you add some context to show why the submission is notable, with evidence from authoritative newspaper or magazine reviews. As for other submissions that may have sneaked through the net - they will either be improved by the community, or fed into the Articles for Deletion process. Good luck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anders Christian Nielsen
Thanks for reviewing Anders Christian Nielsen's page; bummer it got scrapped. A. C. Nielsen was the foundation of the Scandinavian community in Junction City, Oregon, and had he not brought the Danes to the area the annual Scandinavian Festival would not exist. How would you have written the page either to make this point more important or to make A. C. Nielsen more central to the scope of WikiProject Biography?Visitor7 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The two things you could do are 1) to provide a little more context (as you've just done informally) with evidence, and 2) to provide references that demonstrate notability unambiguously, e.g. to well-known publications (like the NYT, for instance). Since the article is already correctly structured, I suspect that just a little bit more detail will do the trick. With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! It helps make the work a pleasure. All the best to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Last (Unthanks album)
Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another barnstar!
Wow, I'm honoured. And I may say you've already been hugely helpful to me, vielen dank! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda!
Just wanted to give you a thumbs-up for noticing that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda was trying to re-create something the same user had requested deleted repeatedly. Good catch and good decline! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We do our best. If that AfC list gets any longer... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfdex
Hello Chiswick Chap. I understand that not every company should be on Wikipedia, but as I searched the internet for information on "crankcase gas cleaning" and diesel truck emissions I found that Alfdex were noted in many articles and are providing a majority of the diesel truck engine market with the means to reduce air pollution. Thus I found Alfdex to be highly noteworthy and created the article. It seems reasonable that atleast the most notable company within it's market should be noted on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! Kevinortegren (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Kevin. Point well made. If you take evidence (and even if necessary quotations) from those non-Wikipedia articles you mention, together with inline citations (and so, footnotes) then nobody, not even me, will be able to resist the conclusion that Alfdex is in fact notable. I see you are already making some progress in that direction. Lycka till! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Charles Bowra
Thanks for your comments on the Bowra stub.

To be frank, my main interest is in Dream of the Red Chamber, of which Bowra made an early translation. I didn't want to put his information on that page, but readers should be able to find out what kind of people were making the early translations. Part of the significance is the pattern which he makes with others who are linked. So I hope you can be a little generous with the article even though Bowra's life was not otherwise outstanding. Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is much improved and looks definitely notable, so the remaining need is to show that the claims are true with inline citations as indicated. It is not sufficient to rely on the pattern made with other Wikipedia articles, though clearly the links are useful. Good work - keep going! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Hall article for submission
Hi Chiswick Chap - I've revised the MH article; what do you think?(will there be an issue re the name? There is another MH but it's redirected to a college of Law.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockmiles (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've tidied it up a bit for you, and marked the places which still need citations. I've also renamed it with the gloss "(fashion designer)". We will need to add a disambiguation page for the different MHs when it goes live. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying the article (and adding the gloss) - it looks great! I've added the needed citations. One issue: ==Celebrity Following== is not appearing in the article body(despite appearing fine in the wizard). Would you mind fixing this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockmiles (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed a broken /ref tag and the article (Malcolm Hall (fashion designer))now seems fine, so I've accepted it. If there are free images illustrating Hall's wonderful designs, extra links to reviews and shows, or other encyclopedic tidbits, then feel free to add them in Wikipedia style. Well done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap! I've put a hatnote on the other MH (Uni) page. You mention above creating a disambiguation page for the different MHs - is the hatnote sufficient? Clockmiles (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done. I guess it depends whether users should go straight to the other MH by default (good if 99% of visitors want to do that), or whether they should be 'educated' by landing on a disambig page. If 'our' MH-ers are constantly being diverted to the other page then a disambig would be better..... On a different note, any chance of getting some photos on to the page (via Wikimedia Commons)? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Judging from what you've said, I'd go for a disambig: As the Uni MH page doesn't include 'Malcolm Hall' in the title, it seems a bit misleading to me (for people landing on the link). Could we get around this by moving the Uni page to 'Malcolm Hall (University of...)'? (I did do this yesterday, but reverted it, preferring to check first - yep, I should be more bold, I know!). And/or (bolder still), if we removed the redirect from the 'Malcolm Hall' page to the Uni page, would both pages then appear in searches (as happens with 'Mercury (element)' and 'Mercury (planet)')? I suppose it's a 'primary topic' issue. Re pics - I will look into this. Clockmiles (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, made a disambig page. I don't feel like tweaking the uni page, and nor did you, it seems! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You got it! Thanks; great working with you. Clockmiles (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Munster Journal of Mathematics
Hi, I dont understand why the article on the Munster Journal of Mathematics was rejected:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed so the information can be verified and to establish the notability of the topic.

The information in the article is correct and can easily be verified on the journal's website.

LinusKramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusKramer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Linus, I understand your feeling about this. Firstly, let me say that the submission was in fact rejected by another editor, not me --- though I was just about to do the same thing as them. Why? We are not saying the information is wrong - we agree the journal exists as described. Rather, Wikipedia requires independent (3rd party) evidence from sources NOT CONNECTED with the subject of the article to verify that it is notable: this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So what kind of evidence would do in this case? --Linus — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusKramer (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be verifiable comments in some other journal or by famous mathematicians, saying how useful the journal was, I suppose. Take a look at BMJ, an article about a famous medical journal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap. I am still not sure how this could be done. A comparable journal would be the Glasgow Mathematical Journal - I fail to see the difference. The Munster Journal has, for example, a citation index in the Mathematical Reviews which is twice the average. I could include an external reference to this, but this would look rather artificial to me. Besides, only subscribers of the MR could follow this link. LinusKramer (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have told you the principle, which is WP:Verifiability which in turn demonstrates WP:Notability. You are no doubt right that many pages do not do this well. A citation of the Math. Reviews is not artificial, it is a genuine attainment. It is OK that only subscribers could follow it as it is in principle Verifiable - we'd just have to find a subscriber among the WP community to check it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alkyl sulfate
Hi Chiswick Chap,

Thank you for reviewing.

After careful consideration, I think it may be best in order fill in the gaps of related articles for "alkyl sulfate" to have an independent page. This is because not all organosulfates are alkyl sulfates, it is a member of this category like sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate (both which have their own independent pages). Other wiki articles mention alkyl sulfates (such as "Surfactant") but since their is no article exclusive to it, there is no link where someone could read more about this common commercial chemical.

Otherwise I would flood a page that is more general ("organosulfate") on a specific member of it's category.

Please let me know if this makes sense and you think it would be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrer D (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrer D (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense. I suggest you put in a line close to the top saying (in Wikipedia-reader-friendly manner) what you've just explained, with a link Organosulfate or perhaps, you get the idea. And resubmit the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thankyou, just doing my bit, and all the best with your wikifying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Chiswick Chap, Thanks for Barnstar.--—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The least that you deserve. Great stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

White Aethiopians (DYK)
Hi, Thanks expanding this article. I don´t know if you saw my comment here? I´m tempted to edit the article myself, but I guess that would not be suitable, as  I cleared it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Huldra, that's nice of you. No, I hadn't seen it, but it's a lovely surprise too. Actually I had already said in the article (para 5), with citation, that the Fula(ni) idea came from Rennel via Morel, so there you are! Many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you are happy about it! However, there are some links there (like to James Rennell, and Mungo Parks work), which perhaps could be included in the article?  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'm sure it would be fine if you did it - "Be Bold" as Wikipedians are exhorted. "Lyckan står dem djärvom bi." Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sergio Grasso
(Lasagnolo (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)) Links are now inside the article, put language tag on links and done a better translation. Hope it will be ok now.
 * Ciao Lasagnolo, ho metto tanti "ref tags" i Sergio Grasso per te. Era un lavoro! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(Lasagnolo (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)) Ciao Chiswick Chap, grazie per l'aiuto, ora è tutto ok !! (thanks a lot for your helping, now it seems like a professional article !!!)

Macroaxis decline today
Thank you for your quick review of the small piece on Macroaxis. Sorry for the trouble, and glad you put it through the process so speedily. Does it disappear for now? Also not sure if I've put this note in the right place, thanks for all you do. Best, KellieFlan (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No trouble at all, and glad to serve. Pieces submitted to AfC disappear (into an archive) after a while unless they are edited and resubmitted, which you are absolutely free to do. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for White Aethiopians
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really pleased and honoured. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation
Hello Chiswick Chap, thanks for helping in Articles for creation. I just wanted to inform you of the addition of a "draft submission" option at AfC. Unlike "normal" submissions, submissions with the parameter |h| (the template has purple color) should be declined with a |t| instead of a |d|. Articles with the |h| parameter are articles for creation draft submissions (technically userspace drafts, only in afc). If they are declined with a |t|, then they are returned to CAT:DRAFT. WP:AFCR explains in a bit more detail. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Sorry to mess people around at that delicate stage. For the AfC work I'm using 'User:Tim Song/afchelper4.js' which I read somewhere had been tweaked for the 'draft submission' option - obviously it hasn't been, or only partially. So I'll have to review drafts manually? - unless there's a better tool? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I use the script as well. Currently, the script hasn't been modified to review drafts. I don't think anyone has informed Tim Song of the change. Until it is modified, we will need to review drafts manually. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tim Song has updated the script. Declining drafts now works correctly. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Thank you for letting me know. (I did drop Tim Song a message - maybe everybody else did too!). Thanks again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip Dray
Thanks for your help with the Philip Dray article! It's my first article and I wasn't wholly sure what I was doing.WikiMrsP (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, it's what makes editing worthwhile. I have added a list of things to do to the article's 'Talk' page (Talk:Philip_Dray). I hope you'll enjoy writing up the reviews - it's much the best way to show how good a writer is, by quoting the best sources available. And enjoy being a Wikipedian! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Promenade at Coconut Creek
Someone found sources. You might want to revisit the The Promenade at Coconut Creek AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Thorner
When blanking an AfC article, please keep any speedy deletion templates. Usually, if the content is severe enough to neeed to be blanked, then it is speedy deletion material; and unless its your opnion that the tag useed was wrong (in which case you should probably replace it with a better one), please leave it for review by admins. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * hmm, odd. I think we both pressed the save button at the same moment - I didn't see the speedy, and I didn't get an edit conflict warning. Of course I'd keep the template. Cheers Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right - I hadn't noticed that there were 3 edits in a single minute (19:05 UTC) - a clear sign of possible edit conflict. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My article
Dear Chiswick Chap, Thanks for making correction on my article, you mentioned this article is more like an advertisement, but I look my article is similar with this article. Please advise which sentence that I must eliminate or maybe add more resources ? thank you Thelagunabali (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Selamat datang. Yes, the article does seem commercial. You are of course right, many commercial articles have found their way into Wikipedia: but (unfortunately perhaps) that does not mean the practice is permitted - far from it: neutrality (WP:NPOV) and reliable, verifiable notability (WP:N) are absolutely central to Wikipedia's approach. Articles which do not meet these standards can be deleted at any time, so you can't rely on being like something that happened to slip through the net. The right thing to do is to find reviews or other articles written in good magazines and newspapers around the world - luckily they all have websites you can search (but not necessarily on Google: that does NOT look inside website archives; but if you visit a newspaper site and use their search box, it will look inside). Semoga sukses! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sweta Srivastava Vikram
Hi Chiswick Chap. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the formatting. Please let me know how I can format this better to reflect appropriate citations. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS123 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Reading the article again, I think I can say simply that the citations don't look like a typical Wikipedia article. In the main section you have ordinary-looking footnotes, but I then looked down the article for a "References" section where I'd expect to see the list of footnotes, and there isn't one... instead, I see a Literary Bibliography (why the 'literary'?) but instead of a list of books with Author, Title, Publisher, Date, ISBN I see a list of external links (titles?) with comments but no bibliographic data at all - very confusing to verify. Then I see a list of Awards and Fellowships - AFTER the biblio, which is usually at the end; then Reviews - oho, there are the references (Why?!) and then finally a normal-looking section of External links - which are surely good 3rd-party refs but not connected to the text, so hard to verify. All in all, a formatting tangle of rare complexity. Can I suggest then that you have 1) the main article, containing any reviews, awards, etc; then Biblio; then References (with the numbered footnotes); then External links (as few as possible, please convert them to footnotes. I think this was probably the most confusing format I've ever seen for a draft article. Take a look at "Gopi Warrier" for a more typical layout. Hope this helps you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

hi Chiswick Chap,

thanks for the response. Anywways, pls take this artcile as prime and also i couldnt find any artcicle about 'C.S. Rao writer'. For your consideration pls.

Regards Raman Ramananugauta (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There IS an article C. S. Rao in mainspace. FYI the rule about suffixes like "(writer)" is that they are ONLY used when there is a need for disambiguation. Therefore the article at AfC will never be taken as "prime" - if you have put any new text there, you will have to copy it into the mainspace article - nothing to do with me so please don't continue to reply here. Thanks.

Jean David Malat
Hello, How do I now transfer this article onto the mainsite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florie Anne Mondoloni (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Florie, it's already in mainspace, I accepted it some minutes ago. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BFI Classics series of books at AfC
Polidari (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Chiswick Chap! Just reading your comments on the BFI Classics series of books - and I think I need some guidance. I'm not sure that I agree with the advertisement issue here. The BFI are a well-respected organisation and the BFI Classics series of books are a well-respected series of critical essays. The books are now considered to be an artistic endeavour in their own right. (I've done a quick check and found references to these books in more than 60 other Wikipedia articles.)

You could similarly say, for instance that the following article - List of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films - is as much an advertisement for MGM as the BFI articles are for the BFI. (Or List of The Simpsons books, List of Hero System books, etc.) Wikipedia has started to accept articles on individual books in the series ( Buffy the Vampire Slayer), so surely articles describing the series, and articles showing what films and programmes the series covers, should be acceptable too? Please let me know what you think...


 * Thankyou. Well, the question is not whether mistakes have been made in other articles - often so, and there is a constant drive to clean them up or delete them - but to consider how to deal with the individual articles in hand.
 * The general rule is that every article must not just be about something someone thinks important - we all differ in that - but in what is, or can be, proven to be notable, by means of reliable, independent (neither the BFI nor Wikipedia in this case) sources. So if the New York Times, Le Monde and The Guardian have all written that series XYZ of books is worth readers' attention, you can quote those facts with names, titles, dates and URLs to prove them. I hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yin Mei accepted
Thank you for taking the time to re-orient the article. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting
I noticed your comment at this AFC, and wanted to make sure you knew that the article does contain proper Inline citations—just not in the most popular style. There is no rule that citations must use the popular tag system. In fact, there is a positive rule that the ref tag citation style is not required.

Also, the definition of "encyclopedic" is about the content of the paragraphs, not about whether the article has been wikified through the provision of links to and from other articles. The Encyclopedia Britannica contains 100% encyclopedic material, despite not having a single wiki link. You should never decline a submission at AFC on the basis of simple formatting issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I got that one wrong - I think the unfamiliar appearance of the article then (it looks a hundred times better now) threw me a bit. Not sure whether to be embarrassed or flattered that I seem to have caused a clarification of the AfC instructions, but thank you for the clarity there and on this page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you decide to be flattered. ;-)  For one thing, only reasonable, good-faith mistakes prompt that sort of clarification, and for another, anyone who's been around for a while knows that it is actually impossible for any single human to know everything about Wikipedia, so there's no shame in not magically knowing every single point.
 * I agree that the first versions of that article were very awkwardly formatted. Happily, the worst of the formatting problems have already been fixed, much sooner than I expected them to be.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Oh, wow, thankyou! That's really kind of you. I'm so glad someone appreciated it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi Rising
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mississippi Rising (Concert, DVD)

Sorry for the mix up on this page, I have added and edited a great deal (as I normally would). It should be OK now that I have had more time. There was cut/paste I did in the first place that took me out of the 'user space.' I was not quite clear on what I had done.

It has extensive sources and should be fine, please go back and look again and I hope you feel more confident to approve it and take tags off.

4 November rescue acts and monuments. I have debilitating Parkinson's. I can't type but I have voice-activated Dragon. I was in real trouble figuring out how to wiki. Finding your work this morning relieved my heart thank you and again thank you. devg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.55.146 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,

Jcooper1 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it is fine as far as AfC is concerned, so I have accepted it. Actually I have a feeling that the sources are still quite light - AfC just requires one, but to protect your back from AfD trolls, I'd suggest you add a few more independent reviews or reports from the media to be sure. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---Thanks. There are couple more T.V. promo and reviews that are still on the web I can utilize, I will add those.

Problem: I am trying to put the DVD cover on and it is not taking it. Seems like it is the same way I have done this before. What am I doing wrong this time? Please advise. Jcooper1 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it already! Maybe WP was having a bad hair moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Easyswap
Hi Chiswick Chap,

Thanks for reading my article. I'm trying to understand which parts of it "sound" like an advertisement. I have discussed it with several people in the wiki chat room, and they suggested getting rid of references to the easyswap website (although when I pointed out that the article on Zend Framework does this, and with a press release to boot, they said it was no reason that I should do it too).

There are a lot of press articles (newspapers, TV and Radio) that I could cite, so I could add them if they would lend more credibility to my article. As for the notoriety aspect, it was suggested that this could be improved too. But I'm not sure how. I could cite all of Easyswap's partners (the city of Lausanne, several universities) but do I quote them? use them as references? External links? create a "partners" section?

Concerning the question of notoriety: I'm wondering if the fact the references are in French is problematic. Le Temps, which I cite, is the largest French-language daily in Switzerland. But of course no one in the English-speaking world has heard of it.

Are there any other pointers you can give me to improve my article?

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardy22 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm not sure I can add much to what the chat room correctly told you. There is no objection to sources in French or other languages - many people including me can read it, and we also have Google Translate for more difficult languages. The commercial feeling of the article owes something to the mention of copyright and of the money-like numbers that are discussed - it all feels like something written with inside knowledge with the objective of "selling" the service. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will rewrite my article in such a way that the reader has the feeling that I'm simply describing easyswap, its history and mission, and the way it works (each LETS has its own way of functioning, of course. I am inspired by another, long-standing Swiss complimentary currency, the WIR that is used by members of the WIR Bank. The WIR Bank does the same thing easyswap does, but rather than exchanging goods and services, its members exchange currency throught mortagages, loans and other financial instruments. What do you think of these 2 articles? In your opinion, would they make a good model for the easyswap article (and for another one I would like to write concerning the "swap") in terms of credibility, notoriety, etc.? Thanks! Shardy22 —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Well, the LETS article is missing quite a few citations; and the WIR article makes claims like "very stable" which sound a bit debatable and perhaps not from a "neutral point of view". But both have their positive sides. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Left a reply for you
I left a reply to you on my talk page.

I look forward to further conversation with you.

TheRingess (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here is a link to my addition on the biographies of living people noticeboard.

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

I tried to summarize my thoughts as neutrally as possible. Please feel free to add to my summary.

TheRingess (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have added qualifying remarks and questions to the summary - never been in that corner of WP before! I note with some concern that there is a red warning at the top of that page that one mustn't post anything defamatory or libelous there, even to discuss it. I'd also point out that Friedman's talk of 'cult-like' in the quote is of no relevance to what I want to say - I'm only interested in the allegations and the evidence for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I don't see any need to use the quote, nor to participate in what I think you rightly describe as Friedman's negative attitude. Even if he's right he's not doing it the right way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! That definitely made my night! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * My pleasure. The barnstar is very well deserved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFC Tarkett
Wait, please. I had started some cleanup on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tarkett before you started reviewing it, such as reference formatting and bullet points. I'm done now; just wanted to let you know of potential edit conflicts. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFC Florrie Palmer
Florrie Palmer. Thanks for your initial feedback. A magazine review is subjective opinion, whereas Palmer's listing as writer in places such as Discog are fact, and therefore (I would have thought) establish notability objectively? If you put Morning Train into Google, results bring up Sheena Easton, but she was only the singer - when you go in, you see that Palmer is indeed properly credited, e.g. http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/sheena-easton-lyrics/morning-train-lyrics.html It goes back 30 years so it's not easy to find comprehensive supporting material. The following is from the NME (New Musical Express) archive: http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/DEriz4FjkSY/search/england-supporters-club Annoyingly, it only says "lyrics by Florrie Palmer" when I know she wrote the whole song, lock, stock and unforgettable music. Can you help at all, or should I continue digging to see what else I can unearth? Best Seeplain (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the right thing is to dig out some undeniable references. It's not a matter of convincing AfC, the challenge is to provide such robust references that your article doesn't get devoured by the wolves afterwards. References do not have to be online - you can cite books and journals and old magazines, just give the title, author, issue details and dates so people can look it up properly if they have to. I've seen AfD discussions where people really did go down their local library, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification (for Chiswick Chap)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Robert The (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Museum of Contemporary Art

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Licensing
Believe it or not until recently, there were two licenses for posters--one especially for film posters. You don't get to choose poster until you've managed to get to the rationale template and check out what's available in the drop-down license box. Same thing's true about the Historical Images license--you don't learn that it can be used for photos of deceased people until you get to the same point. When I first started uploading photos, I "tried on" quite a few of them before I finished the upload.

Know exactly what you mean re: running across the Foxy material. Many times I'd been looking for one thing and stumbled across something totally unrelated which was useful somewhere else. We hope (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * great to meet you and benefit from the expertise. That poster, photo thing does seem calculated to 'bite the newbies', tho!

Thanks again Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kevin Roebuck
Hi:

I created this article only to inform Wikipedia that someone by the name of "Kevin Roebuck" is apparently making a lot of money by publishing compilations of articles taken "as is" from Wikipedia, with acknolwdgment. He/she has already published more that 400 books.

You can see the list of these books here.

In the front-matter of the books it is claimed that a portion of the proceeds is donated to Wikimedia.

Someone at Wikipedia should look at this.

Best wishes and ... good luck! Smith.jjj (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm just a volunteer. However I can tell you that everybody is free to publish Wikipedia text as it's all copyright free. Mr Roebuck is no doubt making a pretty penny out of it, but it's entirely up to him if he feels like making donations. Of course if he's using the donations claim in his marketing, but isn't doing so, that's fraud. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I was just surprised to find some of the Wikipedia articles that I contributed in his book! Also, I do not like the fact that the "wikipidia connection" is in fine print and that he is designated as the "author". Smith.jjj (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sounds a bit rough. Amazon try to mention the WP connection when they list any of these so-called books - I suspect they are often pretty short, scrappy and full of padding and even whitespace. It takes all sorts to make a world! (If they were as clever as you, they'd be after your job...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Small Cells
Hi Chiswick Chap, you recently reviewed a page I started creating (small cells) and commented that it need additional citations for unsourced claims. Could you tell me where exactly so that I can correct it? If it refers to the introduction it's because the citations are in the main text below (a previous reviewer said beef up the intro). I'm not sure what else is preventing the page being published. I have been writing about small cells technology for many years, it's an increasingly common telecoms industry term and there needs to be a definitive explanation of what it encompasses and what it doesn't. After all, it is a multibillion dollar business. Can you please advise? Thanks, Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewartbaines (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Stewart, actually I didn't even review it - just made a comment. It was simply that there seemed to be sentences full of factual-sounding statements all the way through, but that lacked citations. In such a fact-packed article I simply felt nervous about waving it through so chose not to attempt a pass/fail judgement but simply made a comment. (Never been picked up on WP for commenting and asking for advice before!) Come on, let's "Be Bold" (a Wikipedia maxim) and accept it. Be ready to face the wolves... all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap, i look for a diagram and improve the citations. Appreciate all the work you and the editors do on Wikipedia. Pretty invaluable when I'm looking for a technical definition. StewartStewartbaines (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin Winch
Hi Chiswick Chap,

I added a new photo to Martin Winch page. Sorry I am not very good with Wikipedia tech jargons so dont know whether it was properly uploaded. It was sent to me by Neil Hannan who is cited in my page. I forwarded his authority email to wikipedia. please have a look and let me know if all is is ok. Many thanks, thilal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thilal (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Thilal (please remember to sign your posts using ~ ), I've looked on Martin Winch but see no photo. If you've sent an official Wikipedia permission form in as instructed you should be fine but I'm nothing to do with that process: I can tell you though that you MUST use the official form, and it has to be completed exactly as instructed (I think there are three places where it has to be filled in). Easier next time is to use the upload wizard and to follow the instructions there TO THE LETTER! In particular, indicate the kind of license, and write a rationale. Best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Coromant
Please, be more careful in your AFC-reviews! This page even could possible get 'CSD as A12 (spam/advert). All images were uploaded as copyvio (except the logo) and it has only primary sources in! Please, please you doing a good job normally in AFC, but be more careful. Oh and please next time check if the user(s) violates our WP:username policy! mabdul 09:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you marked the two refs as deadends at Three Czech Dances, H. 154 (Martinů)? mabdul 10:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My pleasure, it's what makes editing Wikipedia worthwhile. Thank you for the barnstar, and for starting the article. Fascinating stuff! I hope you'll create many more articles. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, I responded to your comment on my talk page as well. Thanks again for the kind words. See you around! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Tripathi
Dear Chiswick Chap

Thanks for working on Deepak Tripathi's page. Deepak Tripathi spent a year (1967-68) after High School at Aligarh University. However, he graduated from Christian College, Indore. in 1973 and undertook graduate study (1973-74) at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, before moving to Washington, DC, to work for Voice of America. In light of this you might want to reword the second paragraph under "Life and Career." If it helps, please see "Biography" (Reflections blog). Regards Deepak Tripathi (who will remain detached from Wikipedia after this request). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Tripathi Writer (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deepak, wow, thank you very much! We aim to please... I will update the article, of course. I'm very glad we managed to save it from deletion by the foolish wolves who prowl about, 'seeking whom they may devour'. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Animal coloration
Great work on the expansion! :) However, the pictures are now extending all the way into the references section, very problematic in widescreen monitors. I think this is one of those instances where galleries might be a better option, placed under the sections which discusses them (as with the current examples of Müllerian mimicry in insects). I do agree that having pictures makes the article a lot more informative though.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Actually the mimicry image is a single stitched JPEG, but yes, we could use a gallery. I tried to keep the images beside their sections, but the two images of Chromatophores were both so useful I felt they deserved their place. As for the use of images, an article on coloration ought to be full of colour..... Not sure why widescreen is more problematic but we can play with layout - don't rush, as I'm planning to add some more text on Chromatophores so perhaps the issue will go away naturally. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh no worries. I'm currently elbows-deep expanding Alexandre Arsène Girault, and have some more articles lined up that will keep me occupied for quite a bit. You may be interested in the template though (as well as, , and ). Very helpful for stitching separate files together coherently (though it requires a bit of manual calculation to get the dimensions right) and managing layout. As for widescreen, I have dual monitors. Even on 1024x768 the images overflow into the References section. Much more in 1600x900 were the images actually start impinging into the navigation templates. Ideally, images should end before the See also section without displacing section headers to keep the layout coherent. Have fun tweaking, heh. It can get frustrating trying to fit all pictures into an article (I know this from experience). But yeah, no rush.--   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, interesting and useful tips, will try them out - but not probably on this section, which now has more text; and since the images are one-to-a-section, they flow with the text even on smaller screens - not something I normally think about.
 * Girault, eh? I've read Fabre and his bugs but never heard of Girault and his chalcid wasps before... good stuff! I had great fun photographing Ammophila the sand-wasp... and Anoplius the spider-hunting wasp too. Must have a look at the articles on them to see if I can add a scrap or two! Nice meeting you Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Deathlands
I would ask that you perhaps reconsider the phrasing of your delete comment at the AFD. While certainly many of the articles have problems, most are indeed sourcable.. an issue far better dealt with through regular editing rather than ouright deletion. And with the nominator choosing to include many decidely and provably notable topics in his blanket nomination of "any-and-all-even-distantly-Deathlands-related articles", he has created an unnessary problem akin to using a hand grenade instead of sniper rifle... where collateral damage often strikes innocents to the detriment of all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * mmm, yes, thank you, it was too strong, as was my comment also. I have toned it down and removed the rider. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well stated at the AFD. While I believe the nominator has valid concerns, and that many of the articles are poorly writen and require cleanup and sourcing (fixed a few myself as you may have noted), it's sometimes overkill to use use a shovel when a flyswatter would suffice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hephaestus books
Hi, I saw that you added two books published by Hephaestus here. Please note that Hephaestus makes compilations of WP articles and then sells them as "books". It is therefore inappropriate to use them as "further reading" or (even worse) as references. Thanks. --Guillaume233 (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, what awful news. I'd heard of other "publishers" trying this horrible trick, but not of H. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Shopbell & Company
Could you please check the order of the company names against the sources in the article, and check the years they operated against the assertions in the article? While you're at it, can you double-check that there's sourcing for a direct line from the earliest to the latest, rather than there being multiple companies? And an ending date for the last incarnation of the company would be nice, if it doesn't still exist... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm willing to try, but I'm not the article's originator, you know - did you mean to ask him not me?
 * No promises, but I may as well give it a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's originator and I have an extensive history - I figured asking someone neutral-but-interested would be more useful. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ;-) I'm working on it now. Some progress already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found the critical link: http://www.vanderburghgov.org/index.aspx?page=2391 states explicitly "Shopbell & Company, the successor firm of Harris and Shopbell, designed this small brick-walled building on Greek-temple lines in 1911." So the 'ca 1910' is correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with a potentially unencyclopedic page?
Hi! I know you're pretty knowledgable about what makes a page deletable or not, so I thought I'd direct your attention to this page: List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works. I found this via another page up for AfD and I'm just worried that this list invites listcruft via any self-published ebook author, podcast author, or online critic to come and post their name on this list. As it is I see that there are a ton of redlinked names on the list, some of whom I know aren't considered to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Most of the edits are from IPs and while I know that doesn't mean anything, I've got this feeling that it's exactly what I'm worried about: non-notable people using the list to promote themselves via Wikipedia. There's no explanation of what exactly is needed to be on the page (only ebook authors? Include the authors who publish in both print and electronic format?), so I'm wondering if this is just an entry that should be deleted outright. There is some merit to the list but right now the page is just a big mess. I hesitate to nominate it for deletion without getting a second opinion and I'm not sure how to propose something for deletion, so I thought I'd call for some help. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Found out how to propose for deletion, but still want to know if you think it's worth proposing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Hi! Yes, the page is exactly as you say - completely open-ended. After all, every book, journal, newspaper and diary is swiftly turning into electronic 'literature'. Why do you say there is merit there? It's already a mess, while it is very small; now imagine there are 10,000 entries there... Question: How could a mess possibly be prevented in that context? Any way at all?


 * I suppose you can attempt a PROD (why not, try it) but I have a feeling that will at once be challenged, at which point you just take it to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wanted to make sure that I wasn't PRODing too hastily. I went ahead and PRODed it, but I think you're right. It'll probably have to be taken to AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Help with article clean-up
Hi, I would greatly appreciate your feedback to improve the article 'Kulapat Yantrasast. Please let me know if you have suggestions or edits for improvement. Thank you. Lenawhyarch (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Lenawhyarch


 * Hi Lena! I've done a little sweeping and dusting round at Kulapat's place. You owe me a nice cold beer! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! A nice cold beer anytime! Lenawhyarch (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)lenawhyarch


 * My pleasure. Cheers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Phillip A. Murry (Paleontologist)
You edited an article for me about the Paleontologist Dr. Phillip A. Murry. You noted that the subject did not have sufficient citations to perhaps be of nobility for inclusion. Wikipedia actually already cites Dr. Murry for 5 different articles, those articles being on paleontology and including; Vancleavea of which V. Campi (the type and only species) was named by Dr. Murry and his associate Dr. Robert A. Long (both of whom are already cited), Poposauroidea, Poposaurus, Hypsilophodont, and Postosuchus. I was wondering if the fact that these 5 articles are already on wikipedia and that he is well cited in them might now warrant a review of your previous decision. Or perhaps I could ad these to the page somehow, please let me know. Thanks, S.Henny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhenny29 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo SeanHenny, good to meet you. I felt that people would likely delete the article given only the references it currently has, so yes, some more would be advisable. By all means copy the existing refs from the other articles, and even better, put in wiki links (like " dinosaur ") to those articles as well. Articles can't rely on citations in other places, as "notability is not inherited" - each Wikipedia article has to survive on its own merits.

I think you'd better read the guidelines on establishing notability. The general rule (WP:GNG) is that there are several reliable, independent sources for every article, so you'd find some newspapers or books that discuss Murry's work and cite those. Obviously that's hard for an academic, so there's an alternative, (WP:ACADEMIC) which is to show that he's frequently cited or otherwise notable in academia. There are some arcane metrics that academics use to show they are well-known, but basically the more the merrier: held high office, made significant impact and so on (there are 9 alternative criteria to choose from). If you can show that something he wrote is much-cited, that will do the job - I bet it's a dinosaur paper. I'll be very happy to help, and indeed to accept the article once it's ready. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Britten Austin
Hi, Thank you for adding the quote on svwiki. You were ahead of me. I had not yet come to No. 80 in my search for the citation. If you have any comments on my translation, please let me know. All the best,  Rex Sueciæ ✎ 08:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm really pleased you have added the article on PBA to Swedish wiki. Of course he was quoting No. 80 in his introduction. If I can help you at all, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Help on an article?
Hey, just wanted to get a few sets of eyes on an article for creation that I sort of adopted. I'd originally refused it because of several reasons (no references, not written neutrally, etc) but I ended up doing some editing and cleaning because the sheer amount of work this woman has done is pretty impressive. Could you take a look at it and see if it passes notability guidelines? I'm tempted to approve it but now that I've started editing I feel like it would be a bit of a conflict of interest since I'm a little involved in it now. (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linda wolfe) The hardest part for the article is finding sources since a good deal of her work was done before everything started showing up on the internet. I've found a few sources and the article did actually have one (he linked it incorrectly, which I fixed during the edit), but it's pretty slow going so far. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Hi there. (I'm just trying to rescue Edward Morgan (choreographer) which someone has speedied for copyvio (sigh). But it has plenty of good sources so all I have to do is ... write a fresh article. But I digress.
 * Linda Wolfe seems certainly to deserve an article. I agree with you that the sources currently on the page are light; here is a search list of NYT articles - it looks as if there is good stuff in there. Pity the NYT archive doesn't go back to 1980! I do feel the article needs one or two more sources to protect it from the howling mob. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Wow! That's a lovely surprise to come home to on a beautiful winter's morning. Thank you. And keep up your tireless work also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Findhorn Foundation
Hi re the Findhorn Foundation page. I wrote on the discussion page supporting your analysis and recommendations. Landover has not responded to our thoughts. What do you think the next move should be? Davdevalle (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Then we are free to go ahead and take the action that we discussed. Be bold; and I will support you as necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother...
So I'm not much of a wikipedia-er (or, um, whatever someone like that might be called) and just came across the deletion of "Field crumpets". I considered trying to get it undeleted right away but figure it might be best to consult with someone who might know better about whether it deserves to be or not. Since you seemed nice to my friend from MT, I figured that I could ask you and, at the worst, only bother a single person.

So, anyway, back to Field crumpets and whether it is notable enough or even 'madeup' in the Wikipedia sense of the term. I can attest and provide ample photographic evidence that it does, in fact, exist (though I realize this does not qualify it for Wikipedia). The Alaskan local news segment was already brought up in the AfD, and otherwise I can point to a few references to the Come Out and Play (2010) 'showing' of it (though, unfortunately, the indepth discussions were relegated to mostly blog entries while any magazine/newspaper references are mostly in passing). That's all I can really find available on the web right now, and perhaps that fact means that it doesn't belong and I either move on or try to raise awareness of the game so that it is sufficiently notable. But what I suppose I'm really wanting to ask is whether sources which aren't readily available online (or, perhaps, anywhere anymore) would be sufficient. We had a handful of articles and news segments done for Field crumpets back in the early 2000's - all done by local newspapers (including some, but not exclusively, university papers) or local TV stations, and they were done from a number of different cities/colleges (which I do tend to feel is of some importance).

Anyway, I probably have rambled on enough about this - obviously you can't just take my word for the existence of the no-longer readily accessible sources, but if their existence could be 'proven' or whatnot, would that be sufficient to warrant a page on Wikipedia? I guess I'm asking: what the threshold is for having an article? Not only for the sake of whether it should be un-deleted as well as whether it is appropriate to re-introduce the article in the future should I ever get around to raise awareness and get it more 'press'. Would it be a problem if it was sourced from only local media from a single market?

I realize that you may have a different opinion than what the rest of the community might have, but I appreciate any help you might be able to give in this matter. I also want to thank you explicitly for taking time to help someone as unfamiliar with Wikipedia as myself (and I don't blame you if you didn't actually read this entire thing and just ignored it). Thanks again, SombraAla (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's quite OK. You can ask to get it undeleted, or you can reintroduce it as you like - obviously either way, some folk will yell that it's been deleted already for reasons A, B, and C. Therefore, as you rightly imply, you need to have more evidence to hand. I suspect you won't need very much more as the feeling was, I recall, that it was just a hoax; so once you're over that hill into 'oh yes, it's a new game' then the task is to show that it has been talked about enough, in serious enough places, to qualify as 'notable'. Sources to prove this do not have to be on the web, do not have to be easy to get and don't have to be in English - we regularly have arguments about people being notable in South India with evidence being adduced in assorted languages from regional newspapers. Notability isn't temporary, either: if something was ever notable, it stays that way. So if you can prove that it was notable via printed records of newspaper archives that people can check by visiting a certain library, that's fine. But the evidence better be good! Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Barnstar for Pastrychick
Hi Chiswick Chap, I won't be getting any barnstars for posting this comment in the right place, or the wrong place. But thanks for sending me a barnstar for my first article! Now to figure out how these talk pages work...Pastrychick (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lynn Richardson

 * Thank you so much! Actually I didn't spend very long on it, just a little tidying up really. I'm glad to have been able to help, and that you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your helpful advice on my talk page
Hi Chiswick Chap, Being a total newbie, I'm not at all sure where/how to post questions and/or comments to people who have written on my talk page...in any case thank you for your advice regarding the rationale on the file I uploaded. Yes, I am getting lots of advice (which is nice, though conflicting at times) in various and sundry threads on the enormous discussion forum that WP seems to be despite its loftier aims. And while I'm very new with regard to WP, I have some experience with questions of copyright of works of art, and am sad to see how the Internet and digitization have changed definitions, especially with regard to people whose livelihood resides in photographing/licensing works of art. But I digress, and risk soap-boxing inappropriately.

You sent me a lovely barnstar the other day and I sent you a "thank you," or tried to, though it seems to have ended up in the wrong place (under another topic on your talk page). I'll figure out how this thing works one day. But thanks again, both for being helpful and welcoming!Pastrychick (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, my pleasure. WP is a bit of a zoo, but there are a lot of volunteers trying hard to be helpful and to do the right thing. If you need help again, feel free to ask any time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Image in Valery Marakou
Hi -- nice image at Valery Marakou. I think -- though I may be wrong, and am open to learning that I am -- that the FUR only works for the image if it is used in an article on the book itself (not the author), or in a discussion (in the text) of the book cover (properly referenced). I thought I would drop by here (first?) and chat with you about the matter. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, nice to meet you; thank you for asking, and hope we can do something sensible to rescue this valuable page.

That rule would be very worrying if true. My reading of it is that since this author (like many others) does not have separate pages for each book, the discussion of the books and therefore their images are properly merged on to their one-and-only-page. So a major author like Jane Austen would have N+1 pages, and presumably her face on the main one, a book on each of the N others; but a Marakou has just one page which can list all N books and show their covers as long as they are discussed in the article. Same logic goes for CDs and musicians. How's that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: "Does it illustrate the topic of the article?" (WP:NFUR) - well, yes it does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what was explained to me in the past I believe -- when I sought to add a cover of a book or CD to the author's/musician's page. I'll be happy to learn if that is wrong, or if there is an exception if the book/CD does not have a page.  What I believe I was told was that the topic of the article was the musician/author -- and not their work -- and therefore the FUR did not work for the cover of their work absent discussion of the cover itself.  But I've sought clarification here.  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I hope that doesn't stir up a hornet's nest; but in a 'be bold', 'ignore all rules' environment (as if, in your dreams...) we really ought to be able to use NFUR as I've indicated. As far as Marakou's Petals is concerned, I think we needn't worry - assuming the article doesn't vanish, the website says 'Petals' is 1925 which appears to disagree with the cover. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy: 1) if the article develops (or people find it has) the indicia of notability it needs to be kept and the notability tag (finally) removed, and 2) if your interpretation of NFUR is by consensus deemed the better one (I simply was told the opposite, but have some images to add if the consensus is as you understand the matter to be). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!
Oh, thank you so much! Delicious... Glad to be able to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Santosh joshi
Thanks for giving knowledge about pt.santosh joshi.--117.199.116.112 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I like to help. But I am sorry to say that it has become clear that the page was a direct copy of his Google Plus profile, so of course it is being speedily deleted. It is very important to understand that Wikipedia has to respect copyright, and does not tolerate copyright violation in any form. If you have other sources for the article (newspapers, magazines) then by all means let me have them and I will help you put a legitimate article together. For the sources I'll need the name of the publication, date, title of article and name of the author, as well as the full text in Hindi (online so I can get it translated) or English. Then we can do the job properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Steaz AfD
Hi Chiswick Chap-- I've cleaned up the Steaz page into what I think is an acceptable state and have incorporated the sources I mentioned at the AfD. Let me know if you think the improvements are acceptable, and if you would consider stating your intent to withdraw at the AfD.

Also, I can totally understand how Steaz didn't "deserve" and article based on its initial state-- I guess I was feeling charitable this holiday season. :) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! I don't think I did anything at all special, however - just happened on a redlink on my definitely-mortal wanderings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)