User talk:Sionk/Archive 2

Articles_for_creation/Alternative_Cars_Limited_(New_Zealand)
I noted that you declined this article because the references were from car magazines. As these are the most likely and generally only independent source for this type of company I wonder what alternative source you might suggest? My understanding is that the magazines are within independent test criteria and article significance matches the policy guidelines. NealeFamily (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have read the Notability section as you suggested and disagree with your conclusion with regard to the Alternative Cars Limited articale for the following reasons. 1. The coverage in the cited sources is neither trivial nor incidental. They are third party and reliable. 2. Its notability is based on having attracted notice from reliable sources with an interest in the international automotive kit car field 3. The sources are independent of the company, mutliple, and their coverage could not be classified as trivial 4. The sources are international, not just local - United States and United Kingdom, in addition to national (New Zealand) ones 5. While some sources contain an element of promotion, I have taken care to avoid this.

I also sought review and advice from a major contributor to the Wiki Automobiles Project - their comment was:

"... one of you articles (Alternative Cars Limited) seems to have enough references to be "worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" dont know why is was not accepted, the Reid Steam Car article could benefit if you could find more sources to give it more "notability", you can also ask help from WP:CARS discussion ... -->Typ932 T·C 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)"

If you agree, I shall resubmit the Alternative Cars article.

For the Reid car, I think you are correct in suggesting its inclusion in an article about Reid, himself.

I am of two minds on the Countess Mouldings item - Short has continued to develop other business relating to a unique sheep shearing product, which might put him into the some category as Reid. However, at this stage his car is more significant than him.

Thank you for your assistance NealeFamily (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I am only a volunteeer reviewer of Articles for Creation, I have no authority to prevent (or give consent to) your re-submission of 'Alternative Cars Limited'. If you read WP:NCORP you will see that it is recommended to have at least one example regional or national coverage of the subject, to demonstrate its notability, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". I used this guidance to make my decision. Clearly the members of the Automobiles Project will be eager to see more articles in their subject field and may be biased in this regard. I thankyou anyway for engaging in a civil and polite conversation and wish you all the best in your future contributions! Sionk (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation - from what you are saying the question then comes down to what constitutes "media of limited interest and circulation". I'll look into the phrase and let you know what I find. Hopefully it well be helpful to both of us. Always a pleasure to converse with keen Wikipedians, keep up the good work. NealeFamily (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been on a rather long excursion through the guidelines - at best I would describe them as vague and at worst confusing relating to Notability. Given the pages of discussion on Notability and the meaning of "limited interest and circulation" I can only conclude that it seems to become a matter of opinion as to whether a kitcar magazine constitutes a publication of limited interest and circulation - not helpful to either of us. I therefore turned my attention to other Notability guidelines Notability (astronomical objects) and Notability (aircraft), the latter being an essay rather than a guideline. These seem to show a split in the way Wikipedians view notability. As a sweeping generality (please excuse me for this) those from a scientific/literary viewpoint seem to prefer to limit what is notable in their field, while those from mechanical/technological one seem to want to include more. From my personal preference, I tend to lean towards the latter and I think that would be similar for those on theWiki Automobile project - the projects stated aim is to "co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobiles, automotive parts and technology of the automotive industry". A troll through the various autombile and aircraft pages shows some very obscure types, which in themselves must be of limited interest even from my viewpoint. So despite my best efforts I don't think I have resolved much more than to agree to disagree. Let me know if you have any suggest/thoughts on the matter as I am quite interested.  NealeFamily (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Seymour (secularist)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand)
I had later realized my mistake and thereafter i had nominated the article for deletion with your reason. But I think one of the administrators cancelled my request for deletion. (Sumitkumarjha75 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Elizabeth Wilbraham
Nice article on Elizabeth Wilbraham. When I cleaned up the Wotton House article (which I only did because I found it in a terrible state, when linking to the articles on the houses that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson toured in April 1786), I wondered why there was no article on EW. Adams's comments are particularly useful, as he gives a notable view on the worth of many of the best arcadian houses north west of London. The state of the article was ironic really because Adams wrote "Wotton is both great and elegant, though neglected". -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Glad to see other editors are interested in developing the Wilbraham article! The John Adams diaries look quite interesting too. Sionk (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good to see this article on Portal Architecture. Well done! - Ipigott (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

my deadend orphan
Hey, Thanks for finaly adding my article to article space! however, I do not really like that it is classed as an orphan or whatever wiki term is for it being " unreliable". Have a look at Project Harar wikipedia article: I do not understand what makes their sources better than mine? Is 2 bbc coverages not enough? Why is their page trustworthy and Facing Africa's is not. I really need some guidance on how to sort it out. Just take minute and have a look at charities work, it will be enough to u that it is not some 2 day mickey mouse project. I agree with all the changes youve made, but could you consider adoption of my article?:)

P.s. its class that u have to uni degrees!I am a second year phd and i work for the charity i am talking about in the article (i mean im not some random idiot trying to put his fish and chips shops advertisement through), but i do not specialize in wiiki articles,  so please help me out ! ;)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliafacingafrica (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another editor added the 'orphan' tag. I prefer the 'deadend' tag because it explains things more sympathetically. The idea behind both the 'orphan' tag and the 'deadend' tag is to encourage someone to integrate the article into Wikipedia so more people will find it. Articles that have wikilinks to it from other parts of Wikipedia are much more useful and credible.
 * For example, if Facing Africa are an important charity combatting Noma, you could mention Facing Africa in the section of that article about Noma treatment, adding a hyperlink to 'your' article. Sionk (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AFC review
Hi, I overruled your decision at the AFC draft St Jude's Church, which was original declined by you. As you already said in an AFC comment, that this submission is a boderline case. Since the user cited a great independent / 3rd party (and reliable) magazine "The builder" (we have an article on it!) and an old building / church is / should never get declined/deleted because of notability, I overruled your decision. Please also consider using our great AFC helper tool located at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js (add it to your skin.js, if you need help, leave me a talkback) which adds a new tab t the top similar to twinkle. It informs the submitter and doing similar tasks at once! Regards, mabdul 12:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip about the AfC tools. If I return to AfC in a big way, I'll definitely try them out. As for the St Jude's Church article, as far as I understand, church buildings are not automatically notable. But I take your point that an article about this church is very unlikely to be questioned or deleted. I'm glad of your second opinion. Sionk (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work on the disambiguation ;) Next time don't forget the talk page XD (I replaced the redirect with a disambiguation project tagging) mabdul 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. I was still in the process of creating it, but would've probably forgotten the Talk page! Sionk (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversation about Rejected AFC
Hi Sionk,

we had a conversation recently regarding this AFC.

I edited the keepsake box page, trying to keep the addition neutral, and placed an explanatory comment on the history. A Wiki Editor reversed the amendment, I posted a question and explanation on their talk page but have received no response.

I wonder if you could point me as to the best way forward?

Kind Regards, Nickydav (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sionk, thankyou very much for your patience and assistance. Kind Regards, Nickydav (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the other editor's Talk page. Because the Keepsake_box article is so ridiculously short and under developed at the moment, I can understand why they may have thought your additions were OTT. I'll try adding something as short as possible to the article. I still think the Wheathills box is a lovely example, so would make a good illustration. If readers want to find out more, they can refer to the BBC and Derbyshire Life sources. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me on Help page
Talking about Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman Indeed I have added a number of references from renowned newspapers. online and offline also, What else is the criteria for notabilitly Sir. Please note that in category Pakistani classical singers none of them is already such referred. Then a ghazal singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafqat_Ali_Khan has just a one reference of a newspaper. Please have a look and i'll wait on my talk page. Regards Umerali2204 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir, sorry for disturbing you once more, did any progress on my first article Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman take plzce? I've changed the title and removed "Ustad". When will you review it for consideration to move it in article space. Umerali2204 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thankyou very much! It was interesting to read about the topic, though I still have no idea about the music of Pakistan :) Sionk (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eckstein, Karl
Hi Sionk! It's Lerysik again)) You helped me with the sources to my article (remember?)) Thanks a lot) You are the only person whose help is really useful)) You suggested me expanding the sources and so I've done it)) If you don't mind I'd like to ask you to check my article once again in order it isn't declined again. Many thanks)) Lerysik (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About "MZ". So I found out what MZ stands for))) It is "Mitteldeutsche Zeitung" (German newspaper). I suppose I should change MZ to its full name, should'n I?;)) I'll do it right now. Is everything OK now?with the sources and other things? Can my article be published at last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerysik (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Article Shudra - The Rising
Hi Sionk

Thanks for your valuable feedback... I have done some wikifying on this article as per your suggestions.. kindly check & if it's ok I'll be more than happy because it's my first article I successfully got loaded on wiki after immense of my effor... it will certainly boost up my morale to add some more valuable articles here. If the wikifying done by me is as per your desire I feel more confident to give my time to other such kind of articles too. If it's not up to the mark kindly update me I'll certainly work hard on it & will give my best to this renowned encyclopedia. I just loved being here..

Regards Deepak 17:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdeepak scor (talk • contribs)

Belles Heures
Thanks fot this! Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.110 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thankyou mystery benefactor!! Sionk (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thankyou, I obviously need to get out more! Sionk (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Horncastle
Thank you for approving this page and moving it into the encyclopedia. It was very kind of you.—GrahamSmith (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dmitry Borshch
30 sources for a brief article -- which I never claimed to own -- are not enough for Sionk. I can add many more; Artfinder and Artist Finder for example:

http://www.artfinder.com/artist/dmitry-borshch/ http://artist-finder.com/index.php?search&menu=artist&showaz=1&letter=b&start=6650 http://artist-finder.com/stuff/database/info_popup.php?menu=artist&info=85408

But none of this would be enough for Sionk who is more eager to delete than improve. 30 + more "independently published” notable sources do not constitute notability? One self-published source is http://local-artists.org/users/dmitry-borshch, which I think is worth including.

The fact that Borshch donated his images to Wikimedia Commons (a free image repository) completely negates Carrite's statement that the article is commerce-related and promotional. Most living artists retain full copyright of their images in order to profit from them commercially.

Before rushing to delete check the article’s references, starting with the first in “Further reading”. Here is the link: http://www.theassociativepress.com/The_Associative_Press/Fall,_2011.html

I challenge you to be conscientious editors: undo your delete vote, read the journal above and others, then decide whether the article can exist on Wikipedia.

Khidekel (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please make your case in the deletion discussion, thankyou. It is a discussion after which time an independent admin will make a decision about the future of the article. Sionk (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And I will remove your deletion notice. Besides implying my lack of competence as an article creator, it invites people to pile on and delete.

Khidekel (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Whose comments did I delete? Such false accusations will not improve your standing in the Wikipedia community.

I removed your notice because you are not qualified to place it, having no expert knowledge of Russian, Russian-American, Ukrainian, or Ukrainian-American art. You did not even read the article references before you placed it.

Instead of placing that notice again, please respond to my statement above and others in User talk:Khidekel.

Khidekel (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Article for Creation Question/help
Hi Sionk. I noticed you reviewed my Article for Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bath_Fitter) and denied it because "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

In the article, I have references from NYT.com, Business Week, and TN.Gov. Would you mind helping me understand what better references, I should include on my page to help increase the chances that the page will be created? Thanks for your help! (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I declined your article because we need to see multiple examples of independent, reliable, in-depth sources to prove the company is notable enough for Wikipedia. The NYT article at least gives a few lines to Bath Fitter. owever, the BusinessWeek page is a business listing only, as is the TN.gov page. Thougjh I can see you've linked to a government Bill that was written about Bath Fitter, I cannot see any evidence it was raised or passed. Sionk (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice on the article. If I added these 2 references (http://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/bathfitter/282122-0.html and http://news.tn.gov/node/5015) and then take down the business listings, would that meet the needs to create the article? Upwordsem (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, the www.entrepreneur.com page looks like another listing on a website. The Tennessee Government's news page helps to explain the Governor's Award and, though it is a press release, it is independent of Bath Fitter and somewhat reliable so could possibly count in a small way towards 'notability'. If you wish to add it to the article, by all means do so. Inmy opinion the article is a borderline case and I would prefer another editor to make a ...erm ...second opinion on it, so to speak. Why not raise the question at the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? Sionk (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Women in architecture formatting
Thanks, Sionk, for your continuing interest in this article and for your recent contribution. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia frowns on bullet points in articles, preferring running text. I am always reluctant to revert the additions of creative Wikipedians but I would invite you to restore the earlier format, adding your latest contribution to the para on British partnerships. Hope you can go along with this. - Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ipigott, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Wikipedia does not frown on bulleted points in articles. Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists welcomes 'children' lists. Because the section was previously comprised only of a large number of examples of architect partnerships (of a few sentences each), a 'children' list seemed to work better. In my opinion, this is particularly true if the section begins by discussing the general topic, as it should. If you have a major problem with this, maybe the issue should be resolved on the Talk page of the article. Sionk (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you got back to me so quickly on this. I hope we can sort it out between us. Seasoned reviewers have on more than one occasion encouraged me to rewrite bulleted lists as running prose when advising on improvements of articles to B or GA status. They have referred me to the source you quote yourself which states quite clearly: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." That is not to say that sections such as bibliographies, timelines or external links should not consist of bulleted lists - they usually do. Another factor is that as an article expands, it is usually much easier to add to paragraphs of running text than it is to expand on lists. If you still wish to maintain bullet points, I suggest we begin by asking Elekhh for his views on this, rather than cluttering the talk page. What do you think? - Ipigott (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dean Anthony Gratton
Hi Sionk, again, I'm a little aghast by your comments provided on my talk page. You have suggested that it's promotional - far from it. I would argue that these are merely references to Gratton's work. "He wrote a book, but we can't tell you what it is".

Alas, Wikipedia remains a black art.

- Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"(Undid revision 494140056 by Opn800 (talk) as per previous reversion, replace the primary sources with third party sources before removing tag. See Talk page.) (undo)"

Can you please be more specific about the issues with sources supporting this article? The majority of sources are indeed from third-parties.

-Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.33.166 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the message says, please see the article's Talk page. If you think the article does not rely on sources with a close tie to Gratton, please discuss before removing the clean-up tag from the article. Ideally replace the primary sources with secondary sources that independently verify the statements. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejection for Alleged Lack of Notability
Hi Sionk, Thanks for reviewing my Article for Creation on the painter Bertha May Ingle (Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bertha_May_Ingle). As have other reviewers, you have taken the view that her notability has not been established by the references cited.

Strictly speaking, according to your stated criteria, this assessment is correct. But, to be honest, I believe Wikipedia's notability criteria do not really define notability at all, but rather fame, which is not the same thing. To my eye (and many agree with me), the notability of this artist is apparent for anyone to see, in her works that are on display in the cited web site. If no-one has yet written much about her, then, yes, she is clearly not famous. But the facts establishing that she is notable are clearly demonstrated in the sources I have cited. Moreover, they are all directly verifiable by you, as a reviewer, and by any reader of the article.

Look at the works, look at the facts of her life and career. Think about what notable really means: "worthy of attention or notice". Aren't you being blinded by your own boiler-plate?

Mcflann (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi McFlann, I'm glad you agree I was correct. Anyone can claim somebody is worthy of attention; fortunately Wikipedia requires proof of this, rather than taking people at their word. Anyone can set up a website or blog about someone, claiming they are important, which is why Wikipedia's notability guidelines require reliable sources with "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". This normally means authoritative books, or newspaper/magazine articles. The lack of multiple, reliable, in-depth sources about Ingle, plus the significant amounts of original research from primary documents, were the reasons I declined your article. Sionk (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sionk, You have simply repeated your argument, with more boilerplate! That doesn't respond to my point, which is that the boilerplate criteria are misguided, if you are really interested in notability as opposed to fame.  Repeating them doesn't alter that.
 * Someone can be famous (and recognized by Wikipedia) without being any good: witness Florence Foster Jenkins. I contend that someone can be regarded as notable, i.e. worthy of our attention, without having achieved fame, provided the evidence can be shown.  That is what I have tried to do, in the case of Bertha May Ingle.
 * My article is not asking Wikipedia to take anyone "at their word". The "proof" of the facts it states is staring you in the face, but I guess you're too busy copying and pasting guidelines to look at it.  Mcflann (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

AFC Arbitration Place
Hi Sionk, thank you for your help and advice with creating and improving the Arbitration Place article. I will add clarifications as you suggested. GladlyTeche (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)GladlyTeche

wikipedia page rejection - PUNTACANA_Foundation:_Social_Projects
Hello Sionk, I appreciate your review and commentary, and I wanted to address your rejection of the page-in-review for PUNTACANA Foundation: Social Projects and ask that you reconsider, or give further advice on how to achieve page acceptance.

Your reasoning for rejection: "This article seems to be about the Puntacana Foundation. The status of the Foundation is unclear; many of the achievements are cited to Puntacana Resort and Club. Information about the Foundation should probably be incorporated into the existing article about PUNTACANA Resort and Club, unless better independent sources can be found that talk about Puntacana Foundation and verify the information in this article."

"The status of the Foundation is unclear"--- The Puntacana Foundation is a specific department of the hotel corporation Puntacana Resort and Club, as stated in the page-in-review (as stated: "The PUNTACANA Foundation’s Social Projects, of the PUNTACANA Resort and Club, focuses on promoting and assisting in the sustainable human development of local education, health care, culture, sports and community organization of the underserved communities in and around the Punta Cana region of the Dominican Republic through a variety of activities, projects and collaborations.") Please explain to me how I can make the status of the Foundation more clear than how it is listed above. Would it be better to call it "The PUNTACANA Foundation’s Social Projects department, of the PUNTACANA Resort and Club"?

"...many of the achievements are cited to Puntacana Resort and Club"--- to explain this: the achievements listed are due to successful community development projects, of which are all managed by the Puntacana Foundation, and the Foundation belongs to the Puntacana Resort and Club. The achievements cited on the page-in-review are for community development projects- due to the Foundation's activities only- and not for achievements which may be connected to Puntacana Resort and Club, such as an award like "4 star hotel rating". In most of the awards listed, the Foundation is named and even explained- for example, the Grassroots Outreach Award which states: "the Puntacana Foundation has vastly improved the quality of life in the local working-class town of Veron, establishing a permanent health clinic that services 15,000 patients annually, a bilingual school with a vibrant scholarship program, and a polytechnic school—the only high school in Veron to offer free education."

"...better independent sources..."--- upon review of the list of sources, there are nine independent articles and three independent sources used- for example, the Travel and Leisure Magazine, the Dominican Today online newspaper, and the World Travel and Tourism Council- which specifically name Puntacana Foundation and their community development activities. Not only this, but there is a fourth independent source- U.S. university, the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine- which verifies the Foundation's community development activities in health, specifically the yearly Medical Mission projects.

Lastly, I would like to address the thought of combining the Puntacana Foundation's information with the Puntacana Club and Resort's Wikipedia page. I did consider this but I believe that the Foundation's activities are numerous enough that a separate page is necessary. It will attract many Wiki visitors seeking specifically Puntacana Foundation-related information (for example, those who wish to donate to development projects may wish to read about current and past project details, also students of the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine, who participate in the Medical Mission Projects, will have a place to read and learn more about the Puntacana Foundation).

Please let me know further your advice, opinions and commentary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luculence (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sionk, just an FYI I have decided to add the Foundation's info to the existing PUNTACANA Resort and Club page, as you recommended. Thanks for all your advice and support in my first Wiki editing endeavor!! Luculence (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teater Ekamatra
Hi Sionk, after several weeks of research and reading on the topic, and subsequently being repeatedly declined, I am inclined to seek further advise with regard to the creation of my first article. I have read the guidelines on notability, and have improved the article's referencing accordingly. There are independent and reliable sources I have included that clearly indicates the subject's notability. For example, in one book (the Encyclopedia of Asian Theatre: O-Z) which I have referenced in the article, the text on page 759 reads:

"The 1980s saw the birth of a number of companies devoted to creating and staging new Singaporean plays. Of these, TheatreWorks, Necessary Stage, and the Malay-language company…Teater Ekamatra have made the most significant and lasting contributions."

Another book referenced in the article (Singapore Malay Theatre: Issues of Cultural Identity) also includes a comprehensive analysis of the subject as a "prominent theatre group".

I therefore seek clarification and help, to find out what is it about my article that does not verify this theatre company's significance as a notable theatre company in singapore, as there are already articles in wikipedia written for the other theatre companies mentioned in the above quoted text, namely TheatreWorks and Necessary Stage that have already have been approved and published by Wikipedia. As such, I am concerned if this article may not have been given closer scrutiny on its referencing, and have perhaps not been given further consideration of its proven credibility due to the extensive scrutiny on "existing online sources". Thanks for the time taken. Grateful for the help nevertheless. Thelostslipper (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN ArcelorMittal Orbit
-- ELEKHHT 08:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Review - Coalition of Hope - 16 May 12 Review
Hello Sionk. Like many of the comments posted on this page regarding article rejection, I do not understand your determination of non-notability. I have cited member activity in disaster relief as cited by:

•	MSNBC – COH President David Perez interviewed as a guest of Tucker Carlson on “The Situation with Tucker Carlson”

•	ABC News – Article directly addressing COH President David Perez’ rescue/relief operations

•	CNN – CNN reporter Kyra Phillps interviews COH President David Perez on Hurricane Katrina relief operations

•	Military Intelligence Readiness Command Magazine – Page 24, COH Founder Tim Keegan awarded the Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for organizing and shipping 1.2 million pounds of relief supplies to Haiti after the 2010 Earthquake

•	HALO Corporation Harbinger Magazine – Page 22, Getting Serious About Global Disaster Relief

How does this square with your comment, “find independent sources for the information in the article”?

Just today, Harriet Fulbright, President of the J. William and Harriet Fulbright Center, has joined our board. She, along with other notable COH board members, such as former Senator George J. Mitchell, Boston College Dean of Communications Tom Fiedler, and UK Vice Admiral Sir Timothy McClement have found the organization important and noteworthy enough to join COH at the director level. In light of these facts, can you please reconsider article publication? Thank you.

G H Smith (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Article: Newspaper coverage of the Rhea Page Story
Hi Sionk, Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I understand your comment regarding it being a one-off event. Thinking about the issue, it was used as justification for a march by a high-profile organisation (EDL). I wonder if I rewrote the article to give it a wider focus, might this make it more suitable for inclusion within Wikipedia, in your view? Thanks in advance for your guidance. Fergal Fbell74 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Chester Straub
To me it read as a eulogy or hagiography, perhaps taken from an obituary. However, if you believe the article was neutral and encyclopaedic, I'm not going to argue, restored now (not sure what the relevance of him being deceased is, I always thought NPOV applied to the quick and the dead equally).  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you have any views on this, which even has the same incorrect capitalisation of "Received" near the end. I'd speedy as a copyright violation as well as spam, but I assume you are content with the prod. Also see Buff, Smith and Hensman  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  15:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The dead tend to have less interest in promoting themselves ;) Someone had earlier tried to PROD it because it was an unsourced BLP when the subject certainly was not 'L'. But I take your point about the blatant copy-paste which I hadn't noticed at all. The article should probably be zapped on that basis! Sionk (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Folkstreams Review
Hi! I was wondering if you had any advice for me as I'm trying to get this article approved. I'm having trouble finding other legitimate sources to use, and I was wondering if it were possible to edit the article in a way where it only needs one source. Obviously, it would be a lot shorter and probably without extra headings, but my main goal is to get the article published and not necessarily to have a big article. Also, I was wondering if there were any way to guarantee that you would be the one to review the article from this point forward. I understand that may not be how Wiki works, but it would be extremely helpful to me to have one person to talk to throughout the process. Thank you for any help and advice you can give me! Holl!12 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Roxe Graffiti Wall Grangetown 2008.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roxe Graffiti Wall Grangetown 2008.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

notability requirements
Hi Sionk, regarding your recent review of the AFC Page, One Body Press, you said the references were not notable enough. My understand was that if there were third party, verifiable references, like this one, that would meet the requirements. What other kinds of sources do I need to add in order to make it "notable?" Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the message on the article says, articles normally need to meet the requirements of the 'golden rule' which requires multiple independent and reliable sources that talk about the subject in-depth. For companies and commercial organisations, we usually look for non-specialist sources and usually disregard local newspapers and newsletters (See WP:NCORP). The article in the Northwest Indiana Times doesn't even mention One Body Press, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi about my article although bob does not meet the expectational notability that is required for a wikipedia page, surely it would be better then redirecting him to the My Chemical Romance page, if not then fair enough :) thanks   Ericdeaththe2nd

Agreed, it was mostly my friend Tobiesto who made the article, i've mostly been working on Mikey's, although we did make one for Ray it was accepted but someone had deleted it with out notifying us which were disappointed with :/, and agreed I'm surprised nothings been heard of him since

Deletion of new entry
In your opinion William Eivind Hall entry is not notable. But CEOs of large corporations are valid entries to wikipedia especially if they have references. What criteria do you set as an editor as to which CEOs get added?Douglas Eivind Hall (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Susan Smith-Walsh
Thanks for all your help and for setting up the article for me. You have re-named the article form Susan Smith (Athlete) to Susan Smith-Walsh because that is how she is named on the IAAF website that I cited as a reference. Is there any chance that you could change it back to my original name Susan Smith (Athlete)?.

For the majority of her career (including her first Olympic Games and World Championships) she was known as Susan Smith. It was only after she got married that she was obliged under IAAF rules to add her husband's name (Walsh) to her own. That period covered only three years but for the previous 19 years she was Susan Smith and most people searching for her on Wikipedia would use that name. I would be obliged if you could facilitate me but if not its ok. I included the the word Athlete to the title so that she would not be associated with the notorious US woman of the same name.

One more thing! Although the new article is set-up as a wiki page it doesn't come up if you type "wiki Susan Smith-Walsh" in a search engine. Why is that?

Go Raibh Maith agat! Or Diolch as they say in your branch of the Celtic language!

(Scotty1891 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

Hi Sionk I hope this reaches you because I've forgotten how to contact you (I'm very confused trying to navigate through wikipedia). I have just this minute seen your last two posts and I want to explain about mine. I am not collaborating with anyone else. I am writing this as scotty1891 but I am also Montrose1877 and I am also the administrator and owner of the website http://waterfordireland.tripod.com/susan_smith.htm

I don't understand your comment about attributing copyright material to other offline sources. I've just checked the wiki page and none of my sources is from the website. My sources are as follows: iaaf.org, Irish Times, Irish Independent, Munster Express, Brown Alumni Monthly and Track and Field News. I understand that some of the wording might be similar but that's because I am the sole author.. I'll have another look at the page, compare it with the website and alter the syntax. Will that be ok? I sincerely hope so because I am a member of the athletic club to which Susan belonged and I have been asked by the chairman to create this page in time for the London Games.

Best wishes (Scotty1891 (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Hi Sionk I have finished the creation of the Susan Smith-Walsh page - at last. Would you have a look at it and see if it is ok. There are repeated citations of James Reinbold's article in Brown Alumni Monthly. I have read the HELP section re this but, quite frankly, I don't understand it. Could you clean-up these for me. I emailed "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" for permission to use the photo that was deleted and they sent me a form that I completed and returned to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org " releasing the image under a free licence. Hope that all turns out right in the end. When/if you clear the article will it appear an the web as a wiki page? It doesn't at the moment!

Many thanks for all your help through what seemed like an impenetrable fog.

(Scotty1891 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Air Safaris (NZ
Hello Sionk,

I have found new secondary source for the article would that be enough to be allowed for inclusion have a look the changes thanks CHCBOY (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nina Roberts (journalist)
Hi Sionk, Thanks for your comment. I do intend to work on this article some more but I haven't had the time. Is there a time frame for re-submitting or will it remain at the link you provided? In the meantime, is there something that can be done to indicate that there is more than one Nina Roberts? The Nina Roberts with the Wikipedia article is a French porn star. This is an ongoing problem for the Nina Roberts that is the writer/photographer and probably also for every other professional Nina Roberts out there. Thank you for your help. Sansevieria4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some reading suggestions

 * 1) WP:External links, since you seem to think re-introducing external links into the body of an article is appropriate.
 * 2) WP:NOTRS, since you seem to think sourcing controversial claims (such as work experience) in an article to a subject's personal webpage, under the guise of reintroducing a reliable source, is appropriate.
 * 3) WP:Vandalism, since you clearly have no idea what vandalism is.

Another suggestion - next time, try actually doing something to improve the article rather than whining "I don't like that edit! REVERT!!!". Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your advice but I am already aware of Wikipedia guidelines. I did not hit 'revert', as you must surely know; I selectively added back 1300 of the 2000 words that had been deleted. I'm not aware I've mentioned vandalism either. You may, in turn, like to remind yourself about Please do not bite the newcomers. Unless an article clearly falls into a speedy deletion category, it is better (in my opinion anyway) to give a new editor more than half an hour to improve their article. Also WP:BEFORE is quite important in the AfD process. There were sources for the article that could be easily found, while the New York Times article (that you deleted) actually verified some of the biographical information about Bakewell. Bye! Sionk (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for your advice. I take your point that it's a good idea to give new editors more time; in this case the author's total lack of response to communication and dedication to blind reverting led me to believe they weren't being productive. I'm glad the article is in better shape now. I don't have all the skills necessary to accomplish such an improvement on my own, and in the past I've found that starting an AfD sometimes pushes others into helping out (particularly the author).


 * I believed you simply hit the revert button as there were some fairly glaring mistakes in the material you reintroduced (such as the external link; given that you are an experienced wikipedian I very much doubt you actively typed that link back into the body). My remark about vandalism referred to your comment on the article talk page.


 * Look, I'm sorry if I got hot under the collar, I just prefer it when editors who have concerns over my practice raise it with me directly rather than panning me in a public forum such as AfD or an article talk page. Perhaps I have too much pride! I'm just trying to help too; I'm not a complete idiot. Anyway, see you around Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the new editor had exactly the same feelings when you treated the article in that way. Possibly they thought you were 'panning' them too. Ah well, what's done is done. All the best! Sionk (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)