User talk:Theonesean/Archive/2013/10

Arbitrary section break
Hi, can you also review this again too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Angelo_Perrella Thanks, Gliesian (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gliesian, I'll take a look at it soon. the  one  sean  02:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The League of Peace Foundation
I would like to make contact and ask for help.

I work with Foundations and have been reviewing them generally. I submitted an Article on a new version of a very old American foundation... The League of Peace Foundation   ( www.leagueofpeace.org ). I have researched this Foundation in depth with their Directors before submitting an Article. I hired a technician to get it done (the Wiki process is opaque, to be kind). Even he made some mistake, so it never was submitted. One month later we figured this out and re-submitted in the direct submission fashion. The Article was perfectly written and referenced, mainly to Wiki.

Some Reviewer deleted it immediately, because, in his opinion, it was not important. He did not state his qualifications to make such a judgment, such a shallow judgment. He just removed it, it would seem to satisfy his own ego, as an authority.

I would guess he knows almost nothing about the history or capacity of Foundations, probably has little comprehension of global business or how Foundation function in that field. His note was blunt and mean-spirited.

It is a very large Private Foundation, with a 100 year history, and many significant partners. He appointed himself to delete the knowledge and spread of information....

This is simply wrongful.

Can you aid here ?? Writer-on-Foundations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer-on-foundations (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Writer-on-Foundations, I'm going to reply to you point by point.


 * You researched the foundation with their directors. If you are affiliated with the Foundation, you could very distinctly have a conflict of interest. Such things are rather unacceptable
 * You said that you hired a technician to get it done. If you mean you hired someone to write the article, that is discouraged and can present a distinct conflict of interest as well, per Paid editing.
 * Our reviewers come from many backgrounds and have many different opinions. Please refrain from personally attacking anyone, per WP:NPA.
 * I'm really unable to address your concerns any further as I have no information as to who reviewed it, who deleted it, and what article it was. If you could provide links to it, that would be great. Thanks,

the one  sean  23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello The One Sean, I wrote the Article, based upon my experience and research. I hired a technician to make the difficult filing and referencing of the submission. No issues there. I am not affiliated to any specific foundation; no conflict of interest. "ASUKITE" was th reviewer/Deleter, based on the fact that he seemed 'unimportant'. The Article (and Foundation) is--- The League Of Peace Foundation. Writer-on-foundations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer-on-foundations (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Writer-on-foundations, I'm not quite sure what you want me to do. The page was deleted by for reasons specified by . If you want to undelete it, contact them. I'm not an administrator, so I can't undelete it for you. I've pinged both users, so maybe you can ask Bbb23 to undelete the article and put it in your userspace so you can work on it. In fact, I'm going to request that Bbb23 (if he gets my ping) does that anyway. Judging by the delete criteria, the page wasn't a copyvio or something, so it should be fine to undel and userfy. WOF, I will bend over backwards to help a new editor, especially one who asks for help (how did you find me, btw?) but there's not really all that much more I can do. Thanks for contacting me, though, and I hope Asukite and Bbb23 can help you reach a conclusion that is amenable to all. Thanks,  the  one  sean  21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * writer-on-foundations, in response to your comments, both here, and on the talk page of the currently deleted page, I will defend my action as having been proper per WP:GNG. You may read that sectionand further, if you wish. My action was not based on my "whim," as I alone do not have the ability or authority to do such a thing. Deletion was decided upon according to the lack of verifiable secondary and tertiary sources for the subject (note that there is no hard requirement that said sources exist within the article, just that they exist, somewhere), after a web search using multiple search tools. The most authoritative source I recall seeing on the page was the website for the foundation, which is insufficient. My decision was then followed up on by the deleting administrator, whose job it is to verify that my claim is correct, and that it reflects community consensus, albeit with a limited number of opinions.


 * Your options would be to request a copy of the page from the admin, and then add sufficient web and/or book/journal sources, so that we can't possibly deny the subject's notability. You may also find AfC to be helpful.


 * In short: Not I, nor any editor on Wikipedia has the authority to state that an subject is "insignificant." We can only do what limited research we are capable of and act from there. In cases where the notability of a subject may be questioned, the burden of proof often lies on the author(s). I am reasonably confident that another editor would have performed exactly as I. Hopefully you don't feel deterred or offended by this - we certainly need more original submissions, and can't afford to reject good content based on whims.


 * I hope I've helped. {{{sub|C}}  A S U''' K I T E  T} 00:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the article as deleted, and checked for sources. The article made no mention of this being an old American group - it stated that it was a British organisation. Apart from the League's website (a single page with no contact info or history), I can find no evidence of the existence of this organisation. I have declined a request made on a talk page for the deleted article on the grounds that the deletion was correctly carried out. Until reliable independent sources are forthcoming, there is no point I can see in userfying this article. Peridon (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, have now reviewed the article, and it had almost nothing in it of any significance. It was mostly promotional with detours into generalized statements about peace and other related subjects having nothing to do with the organization itself. I don't know where the user comes up with the statement here that the organization has a 100-year history. The article itself stated that it was started in 2012 and incorporated in the Bahamas. The sources in the article were the foundation's website (self-published), some Wikipedia articles (unreliable), and some personal material about Kant (unreliable and irrelevant). I agree with Peridon.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC drive
Hi. We were inadvertently reviewing the same article, and I'd appreciate it if you'd mark articles you're working on as "under review" to minimize similar collisions (unfortunately, there are plenty of articles to go around :-)). Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the heads up. I'm usually fairly quick at reviewing, maybe three to five minutes to read an article, check copyvio, look up various notability guidelines, maybe do some WP:SOFIXIT edits. I always thought that under review was only for longer reviews, like articles that take a lot of source checking etc. I will try to get into the habit of marking all of my reviews as such. Thanks! the  one  sean  18:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't put yourself out just on my account, since it sounds like you're more experienced with AFC (and do the reviews faster :-)) than I am. I find myself checking sources in many cases to determine notability, which is a bit time-consuming. Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Story of a Small Town
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Story of a Small Town. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My proposed article on "The Born-Oppenheimer Time-Dependent Equation for Molecular Systems
Dear Sir:

For some unexplained reasons you or some other members of the Wikipedia decided not to publish my paper, claiming that this subject is already discussed in Wikipedia. There is a basic misunderstanding regarding my contribution and the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation as presented in the Wikipedia. There is no connection whatsoever between the Born-Oppenheimer APPROXIMATION and the material I discuss in my contribution. Not only does my contribution treat the Time-Dependent Approach for Molecular Systems (the Born-Oppenheimer APPROXIMATION is TIME-INDEPENDENT), but in my contribution no approximations are mentioned. Thus, altogether there is no connection whatsoever between the two issues.

I insist you do one of the two following things: Either you permit publishing my contribution as it is (there is no need for additional editing) or you consult a real expert, namely, a physicist specializing in the field of molecular dynamics. If this is not done, your activities cannot be considered appropriate, they would be contrary to integrity, honest and the spirit of the Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

Prof. Michael Baer The Fritz Haber Institute for Molecular Dynamics The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baemic (talk • contribs) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor, there's no need to make unnecessary and counterproductive accusations. I'm sure we can find a solution amenable to all. Could you enlighten me on a few points?
 * Is this your own idea?
 * Has it been published in peer-reviewed journals?
 * Has there been any external coverage in newspapers, magazines, or other journals.
 * On another note, as soon as we get this figured out, I hope you remain an active member of Wikipedia! Professors and other experts really are valued on Wikipedia. You might want to have a look at any science WikiProjects.
 * As soon as you provide me with some more information, I'll be glad to help you.
 * Thanks, the  one  sean  01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

afc Geoffrey Wilson (author)
Hi Theonesean,

I see you declined my afc on the grounds that notability was not proven, and you specifically mention that an interview with Geoffrey Wilson in a newspaper would provide such proof. Yet, the article did reference an interview with Geoffrey Wilson by a national newspaper, The New Zealand Herald. Could you please clarify, why this is insufficient?

Re: your request to use my comment in a collection, that would depend on what the collection will be used for. Can you advise?

Many thanks and kind regards, Suse999 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and thanks for contacting me! Yeah, I saw one interview, but per WP:42, sourcing should be extensive. If he's notable, then he will have been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. Take a look at WP:NAUTHOR and see if he meets the guidelines there. Thanks, the  one  sean  01:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 01:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide any further insights into why my submission for Senior Lifestyle Corporation was declined? It says that it reads like an advertisement and that I need to use independent sources. Any chance you can elaborate? I added 7 independent sources since my original submission. I am unclear what I need to do to my current draft before re-submitting. Thanks! MrSeniorChicago (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me! I'll be glad to help you out. Your sources seem pretty good, if a little anemic, You might want to take a look at WP:NCORP and evaluate that article against those standards. But mainly I declined your article because of phrases like:
 * "The Walk with Me Care Partnership program is designed to take a personalized approach to easing the transition for our residents with memory loss by connecting each family with a care partner."
 * This sounds like something out of a sales brochure. What you need to do in writing the article is try to be as neutral as possible. Be boring if you want. The more boring, the better for Wikipedia.
 * I hope this is what you need. Thanks, the  one  sean  02:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blobfish
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blobfish. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Berkowitz
Hi Theonesean,

My article for "Al Berkowitz" which you reviewed, is said to need formatting. Do you know which kind of formatting should I do to improve it? Thanks. Regards,

Carmaikel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaikel (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined content - Invoice Trading
You declined an article on a new finance product, invoice trading. As a new editor, I'd be grateful for advice on the sections of the text that need referencing and what would be considered reliable sources.

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilEdwards1964 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Senior Lifestyle Corporation re-submission
Hi Theonesean - I just resubmitted the Senior Lifestyle Corporation entry. It no longer has sales-y language--just the facts. Thank you for your help. MrChicagoSenior (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 16:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
9 Oct 13 G'day Theonesean,

Many thanks for your review of the page I wrote entitle The Afterlife series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Afterlife_Series).

I would appreciate any feedback you can give me to correct the page to allow for its publication.

Cheers.Christopher 01:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. I'll take a more in depth look and get back to you soon,. Thanks, the  one  sean  11:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Christopher, this seems to not meet the guidelines of WP:NBOOK. If it does, add WP:SOURCES to verify it. Also, see WP:PLOT. the  one  sean  13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
As you previously  participated in  related discussions you  are invited to comment  at the discussion  at  WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On that topic, how is the "AfC training program" development going? Technical 13 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , I've been really busy. There's an outline of the program on the page, but I need people to develop units on categories, redirects, files, and the help desk. I have most of the "article reviewing" units in a Google Doc, I just need to wikify and paste it in, but it should be done (I promise) by November 15., can you redesign the main page to be like WP:CVUA? I like as a color, but do whatever you think is good. Thanks for checking in. I guess this marks the end of my impromptu wikibreak. Best get back to answering newbies. Thanks.  the  one  sean  13:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Give me a link to  the page. I  was going  to  simply  clone the CVUA project and just  change some of the text so  you  could do  the rest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Theonesean/sandbox/AfC_Mentoring the  one  sean  13:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind I put the color you like in a Color box to make it easier for others to visualize. Technical 13 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I nearly have the draft  school  page done to  combine all  your elements to  make it  harmonise with  our suite of training  pages. I'll  give you  the link  later today. What  you  do  with  it hen is up  to  you ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acharya S
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Acharya S. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Academy
Now in project  space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm normally pretty Spock-like, but oh goody oh goody oh goody! Yay! On a more serious note, thank you, Kudpung, for being a more awesome Wikipedia than I could ever hope to be. the  one  sean  11:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)