User talk:Snowysusan/archive 3

Article on Marvin Rees
Hi there, I submitted a biographical article on Marvin Rees but it was declined due to a lack of references. I have now edited my article with references and hope I have done this correctly. Thank you for your feedback. If you could have another look and let me know if this is ok that would be greatly appreciated. THanks!

Hi Snowysusan,

I am not sure if you have had sight of my last comment re the article I was trying to submit? I updated the references I added to the article based on your feedback but have not heard anything back as yet. Are you able to look into this for me? I cannot seem to find the article itself. Really new to Wikipedia! Thank you.


 * Hi Nicola. As you can see, I did some work on your article and I have created it in the main space.  You may continue to work on it and edit it to add more substantial inforamtion about Marvin Rees, but remember it cannot be promotional or supportive of his campaign - it must remain neutral and factual, supported by independent references.  However, you can include more references to articles about Rees and/or his candidacy for Mayor.


 * Have a great day! Snowysusan 11:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Talk

Snowysusan, you are an absolute STAR!!! Thank you so very much. Regards, Nicola

Harry Stickel Deletion
Thank you for your kind note regarding the deletion of the Harry Stickel article. When I saw that the article had been created through the AfC process and formally approved I was a bit taken aback myself, since you had obviously considered whether it met the inclusion criteria and felt that it did. On the other hand, given the thorough discussion and consideration of sources, I felt confident proceeding with the deletion based on the consensus at the AfD. That said, best practice would have been to notify you. The AfD policy states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article." There is no consensus to upgrade this recommendation to a requirement because it would yield too many useless notifications on highly watched or very old articles. To ensure that you are notified of any deletion proposals on articles you have worked on or approved, the best method is using the watchlist. Any deletion proposal is made via an edit to the article's page and will show up in the watchlist, typically with an edit summary saying "nominated for deletion". Eluchil404 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to:


 * Good Afternoon,


 * I received notice through my watchlist today that an article I reviewed and accepted through AFC was deleted today. When I looked back through the process I see that it was nominated for deletion, then the proposed deletion was discussed and finally it was deleted.  My first notice of any of this was today, after the article had been deleted.  I realize I could ask for a review of that decision but it was clearly made after careful consideration by the community.


 * I was just wondering if there was any process by which an editor who has reviewed an article in good faith could be notified at an earlier stage in the process? I think it might be useful when discussing a proposed deletion to have the input of the person who accepted the article as to why he/she thought the article met the necessary Wikipedia criteria.  At the end of the day, of course, one person's view does not and should not carry the day but given the work that reviewers often put into the process, sometimes several days of our time, to help a contributor bring a submission into line with the criteria I can't imagine that we wouldn't have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion if we were notified that it was taking place.


 * Any information you can provide would be appreciated.


 * Thank you. Snowysusan Talk 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
Thank you for your message regarding my recent submission for Northwest Car Owners Club (NWCOC). You declined it on the fact that there were not enough references in the article. There is a reference to the main website which backs up what the article is about. What other references would you suggest? There has been no books on the subject, as of yet no media coverage, although that will be coming in the next show season. I am now at a loss as to what other reference apart from the website can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca1411 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for writing the following message to me:


 * Thank you for your message regarding my recent submission for Northwest Car Owners Club (NWCOC). You declined it on the fact that there were not enough references in the article. There is a reference to the main website which backs up what the article is about. What other references would you suggest? There has been no books on the subject, as of yet no media coverage, although that will be coming in the next show season. I am now at a loss as to what other reference apart from the website can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca1411 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines for notability of websites help page. You will note that your article, unfortunately, could have been declined for more than one reason - I chose to refer to the lack of independent references which also means the subject is not "notable" as that term is defined by Wikipedia. I have no doubt the webcite is helpful to its users but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. At the help page you will read that if, as you have indicated, there has been no significant media or other independent coverage related to the cite then the cite is not "notable" as defined by Wikipedia and cannot be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

The guideline reads (in part):


 * In the dictionary, notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.


 * "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below).

I hope, after reviewing this guide, you will understand why I was unable to accept your article. However, if you feel I was wrong and your article meets the criteria for notability of a website, you may wish to access the Dispute Resolution Notice Board to discuss the issue or seek a Third Party Opinion from another experienced reviewer who may well take a different view.

Best Regards, Snowysusan 16:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Snowysusan Talk

Recent article for creation review
Hi Snowysusan,

could you please elaborate on why this request Articles for creation/Steve_Gottlieb was declined with this particular reason? as far as i can see it the request was never empty at any time. thanks in advance  14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

i don't understand why my article is being deleted
if you compare the article on J. E. Cosgriff Memorial Catholic School with the article i entered on The Madeleine Choir School, you would see the same type of information. Yet the Cosgriff article is posted saying that it is incomplete and my article is denied. what kind of references can i give you when i am using school produced copy? Ydaltak (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My response:


 * I know it can be upsetting when you have worked hard on an article and submitted it in good faith, yet the article is not accepted. You are right, the article and J.E. Cosgriff should probably be nominated for deletion as well because it is not properly sourced.  If there are no independent, third party sources about a subject it will not meet Wikipedia's requirements for "notability."  There are no agreed upon guidelines for the notability of schools, so we have to use the general rules for notability.  If you wish to review them they can be found at Wikipedia - Notability.  I am sorry but your article does not meet these criteria.  I did not submit your article for speedy deletion but it can be deleted if it does not meet the notability requirements.  If you do not agree, a link is provided within the notice for speedy deletion so that you can dispute it and if, after you review the criteria for notability, you feel your subject is notable then I invite you to state your objection by clicking on that link and providing your reasons.  Best Regards Snowysusan 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

More References
Susan, Since the Olympic Organ Builders closed over 40 years ago - somewhat before the internet age - I'm having difficulty finding original sources for reference. Since I was the most active partner in this company, i consider myself a reliable source - if somewhat biased.

One of my partners has Alzheimer's, and the other is also retired. I'll try to contact Dave to see if he can provide the material you need, but he is partially blind and may not be able to help. I don't have an Email address or phone for him, but I can keep trying. Would edits (off line, of course) from him help?

I have found references to another database of pipe organs but have not been able to track down the database itself.

This matter of references is partially a chicken-and-egg problem. Without an original article (this one) there can be no cross-references!

Sincerely, Jim Ludden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimLudden — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimLudden (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear SnowySusan;

I appreciate the ability to converse and receive constructive feedback for the "talkpage".I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zckjsrbn (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

new topic
Dear SnowySuzan, I appreciate the constructive feedback with the Wikipedia User Talk Page .I would  like tothank you for reviewing an article for Teodoras Daukantas. I would like to think that I could apply to have the artice submitted for a Featured Artice Review. In my own defense I have submitted photo images :

Wikipedia Permissions staff member Stephen Philbrick; Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org Permissions [permissions@wikimedia.org] subject: [Ticket#2012082910008446] @ Wikipedia Permissions

Wikipedian account # Zckjsrbn, george vytautas daukantas. Post Script :

Dear Stephen, I hereby affirm that: [ (Rekemai internete or reklama@5ci.Lt ) ] or [(Vaizdo studija), filmstudio@skynet.Lt ] or [ ( info@smarthouse.Lt )] are  the creator and /or sole owner of the exclusive  copyright of Teodoras Daukantas jpg files .Wikipedia Permissions staff member Stephen Philbrick will attempt to upload images of one Teodoras Daukantas. In the meantime, I thank you for accepting the first drafts of the article in question. I will make every concerted effort to properly format the article in its entirety.

If you can offer me any advice on this process, your feedback would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zckjsrbn (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete the MEDIS study
Dear Reviewr! Could you pls re-upload the article about the MEDIS study without the sentences you thing that are problematic... Many thanks, D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbpanag (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Article on Gregory Nicholas Malouf
Hi Snowysusan, Thankyou for your review and feedback of the article I wrote. Unfortunately, as this is Malouf's first book, there is very little, if any information on the internet to reference to him. What would you suggest I do to bolster the article? Gregdjacobson (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Star Island, Bermuda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilson Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Declined submission
Hi, I was just wondering if you could elaborate on your reasons for declining my Long Sutton and Pitney railway station articles for creation submission. I believe I have referenced everything that needs to be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeo34 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoduck aquaculture
Hi!

I would like to know specifically why this article was declined at this time. If the reason is that the article on Geoduck (the clam) already exists, then it would not be sufficient because the contents of these two articles are different.

When researching the possibility of writing an article on Geoduck Aquaculture on Wikipedia, I looked at these existing articles as examples:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_aquaculture

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp_aquaculture

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilapia versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_tilapia

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed_farming versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scallop versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scallop_aquaculture (the article on the animal has a small section on aquaculture linked to a separate and larger article on scallop aquaculture)

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_salmon (the article on the animal has a small section on aquaculture linked to a separate and larger article on the aquaculture of salmon)

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_catfish (the article on the animal has a small section on aquaculture linked to a separate and larger article on the aquaculture of catfish)

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_coral (the article on the animal has a small section on aquaculture linked to a separate and larger article on the aquaculture of corals)

When preparing the outline for Geoduck Aquaculture, I patterned the contents after the articles on the aquaculture examples above to avoid any similarities with the article specific to the animal. If all the above articles (animal versus its aquaculture) are allowed to co-exist on Wikipedia, then I see no reason why the article on Geoduck Aquaculture cannot co-exist (and is in fact linked) with the article on Geoduck.

Examples 1 to 4 set the precedent to why Geoduck Aquaculture should be allowed on Wikipedia along with the article on Geoduck. Alternatively, in the same manner as Examples 5 to 8, a small section on aquaculture can be added to the existng article on Geoduck that links to the much larger article on Geoduck Aquaculture, which should be allowed.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Nadine al (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SnowySusan for the very prompt response. I did consider amending the current article on geoduck but realized it could get bloated by the contents of the aquaculture article, and since there were precedents, I decided to create a separate one. Thanks again.

Nadine al (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

query : 3 September 2012 by Snowysusan, with the edit summary: Your submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation
Hi susan, I am not able to understand, what should i do and how should i do it. if you could help me and tell me how to go about it step by step i ll be grateful to you.

Vikas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikassharma2512 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Hahn Democratic Strategist
Hi Susan. This decline needs to be reverted - the article (at the time!) was MUCH longer and was simply not shown due to a closing-tag-missing-for-a-ref, something which isn't exactly tricky to fix! It's subsequently been improved by another new user also. I'm not saying it's 100% ready to go, I'll leave that to yourself, but a fair review is in order methinks! Cheers,  Nik the  stoned  16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update!  Nik  the  stoned  08:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of new article
Dear Snowysusan,

I have read your comments concerning the new article 'The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction.' The PDF on the internet site you mention was written by myself and I am the contributing editor of this article. The article submitted as slightly different from the one in the PDF.

There are three images which greatly enhance understandng the article but I have been waiting for approval of the article before uploading them.

I have read the article you referenced about what is appropriate for Wikipedia and I believe this article meets the criteria.

Is your objection based on your opinion that the article does not explain the theory at a more elementary level? The concept does require a basic knowledge of physics (i.e., the conservation of angular momentum). Please explain your reason for not accepting this article.

Thank you, Jstheorist Jstheorist (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Great Stone Face Millard County Utah (Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith likeness)
When I looked up "Great Stone Face" on wikipedia I was taken to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stone_Face) where I found the Millard County reference (unlinked). Because I had the material to fill that need, I was attempting to do so. I was wanting to carefully illustrate the likeness between the "Great Stone Face" and Joseph Smith. Did you make the link or did it happen automatically?

In my opinion, your handling of the subject matter remains unresolved in the eyes of the "unimaginative".

Would it appropriate for me to include the Miller Canyon petroglyphs in the Millard County article? Sid.L.Young (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about the page of AASTOCKS.com Ltd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/AASTOCKS.com_Ltd.

We would like to know which part of the article is looking like advertisement. We just put factual description for the organization. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamichael (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)