:You're more than welcome to edit the coordinates yourself if you think they are inaccurate. They're included in the information added to the 'Infobox' between the curly brackets at the top of the article code. [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk#top|talk]]) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:You're more than welcome to edit the coordinates yourself if you think they are inaccurate. They're included in the information added to the 'Infobox' between the curly brackets at the top of the article code. [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk#top|talk]]) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, Sionk. I've made those minor changes now.
[[User:CorneliusWilliam|CorneliusWilliam]] ([[User talk:CorneliusWilliam|talk]]) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A belated welcome!
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, Sionk. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Thanks for reviewing the article for submission on "William Casey King". I have tried to address your concern that there are secondary sources lacking. I included articles about King from the Washington Post, Barrons and added an appearance on an NPR program as secondary sources. I had already included an article in a French newspaper. The comments by third parties about the forthcoming book were made be independent reviewers but I removed them from the article because they appear on the publisher's website and nowhere else yet. Maybe when the book is published, I will cite other reviews. Furthermore, I added a citation to Washington Post Book World as a secondary source who reviewed King's first book. As this is my first article, I would really appreciate if you could let me know if you think these steps will rectify the problems you mentioned. Thanks so much for your help.Kittythedog (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Kittythedog[reply]
article Hadrien Laroche
dear Sionk, I am trying my best to follow the advices you gave me ; you can check the article on my work on wiki Franc :http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrien_Laroche. I gave you all the ISBN of the books published and some reviews in the references section. I's important for me as a new translation of my work (The Orphans) will be published in 2013 by Dalkey archive press. I do not know how to do better ! Let me know. All the best, and happy X Mäs. Hadrien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larocheh1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Edits
Great to hear from you again. Your stirring words make people want to contribute even more. A little suggestion from me. Maybe you should think about revising how you address people. Its really not becoming of you and not everyone is a Wikipedia guru. Some of us are new.
Now to address the below issue.
I did't think my changes were major, so I labeled as minor. Obviously, if I considered them major, I would label them as such. I will try to do a better job moving forward. Sorry for being such a burden.
I am very confused. This article was declined as being unsourced or having unreliable sources but all the information in the article is taken from the two sources which are the British Government Department of Education website which lists exam results for all schools in the country, and the Ofsted website which is the British Government Office for Standards in Education, which rates all schools every year. It's also not very "adverty" because if you knew about British schooling, a grade of "satisfactory" is a poor result - the four categories are Inadequate, Satisfactory, Good and Outstanding. Can you look at this again please? 86.139.156.27 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atos
I read your message on my talk page. I have requested serveral changes through the talk page of Atos. Non of the editors have responded. Did not make any change on the Atos Healthcare section, nor did I remove any reliable sources.
In my humble opinion such a section does not belong under the intro. The section further down covers everything.
If this part needs to be kept in the intro, other information on the sub organization of Atos should be added too.
I will search for other lodges for the part on the new automobile venture. Thanks for informing me about Reuters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim362729 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to discuss this (or other issues) at Talk:Atos in future. As for the intro, it is meant to summarise the article. Considering the Atos Healthcare issues take up a major part of the article it should really be mentioned in the intro. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholls State Colonels head coaches navbox
I appreciate you getting back to me about our minor edit discussion. I have another issue in which you may be able to help. There seems to be a problem with the Nicholls State coaches navboxes. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NCAA_Division_I_FCS_coach_navigational_boxes, it lists both a Navbox for
Template:Nicholls State Colonels coach navbox and Template:Nicholls State Colonels football coach navbox.
It is the only school on the page like this. I tried to delete the duplicate Template:Nicholls State Colonels coach navbox but when I did the Template:Nicholls State Colonels football coach navbox information would disappear. I tried fixing this issue, but I finally gave up. Do you know why this is occuring or how it can be fixed? If you feel this isn't an issue, then I won't worry about it either. User:spatms (User talk:spatms) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk, I just wanted to let you know how I know that the two contributors I marked as connected to the article DOT DOT DOT (artist) are in fact connected. In the article it says that DOT DOT DOT "founded the firm All Rights Destroyed together with Peter Hillgaar in the summer of 2012..."
Allrightsdestroyed and PeterHillgaar happened to be the main two accounts that started or added sourced content to the page, so it was pretty easy to guess from their usernames and the nature of their edits that there was a likely WP:COI there. I also googled "All Rights Destroyed" to confirm a connection with the artist and found further pages mentioning their names together. After posting a conflict-of-interest message on Allrightsdestroyed's personal talk page, Allrightsdestroyed contacted me privately asking for advice on how best to proceed as a COI editor. I replied in some detail regarding Wikipedia's COI policies.
Because I'm confident the two accounts have a clear conflict of interest with the subject, I'm going to re-add the 'connected contributor' templates to the talk page of the article. But do let me know if you have any further questions! Cheers. AtticusX (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we are finding more quality sources, is there anything that you would advise we add to the body of the article. and we are aware that many of professor Onwudiwe's writings are cited but that is not because of his writings, but because of the introduction given to him by the various organizations he has written for — Preceding unsigned comment added by OWUDean (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for creation/William Algernon Churchill
I have read your Comment: Sourced mainly to an unpublished hand-drawn(?) family tree and a series of announcements in the London Gazette, this shows no signs of meeting Wikipedia's general notability criteria or the notability requirements for diplomats. Sionk (talk) but I'm at a loss to understand how to make the references more verifiable.
the unpublished hand-drawn(?) you refer to is a collection of family tree documents which I have in my possession which I've posted on wikiCommons
I do not understand why announcements in the London Gazette do not constitute verifiable references
I assumed the reference to the National Library of Ireland catalogue qualified as a verifiable reference, as does the other linked to 'watermarks in paper'
I have searched the Internet thoroughly for further references but so far been unsuccessful.
there are more references to him at http://www.levantineheritage.com/testi58.htm but this, as I understand it, would count as a secondary reference - this page has been published by a distant relative of mine in the states who has collated a range of information, some of which I have referred to directly such as 'watermarks in paper'.
something I am not understanding is that I used a fairly similar set of references i.e. principally the London Gazette) when submitting pages for his two brothers, Harry Lionel and Sidney J A, who were each diplomats and both of these were accepted without any modification, and I'm not understanding the difference.
please let me know what I can do further to satisfy the criteria for acceptance for this page.
Can you elaborate a little bit on why you don't think the duo is notable? I'm under the impression that they are notable. Their Emmy award being possibly the biggest reason. RyanVesey02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're both adverts, so not at all trustworthy. I guess they're perpetuating something told to them by the brothers or their agent. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Ayling
With respect, I think the change that you made to the article about my father Dennis Ayling is illogical. To suggest that he didn't win the academy award for best visual effects, but that the film did makes no sense at all. Are you saying that only if an individual wins an Oscar can we say that they won it and that if a group of individuals wins an award the film won it? If this is the case you have a ton of editing to do, as many, many people in who fall into this category are referred to as having won awards (see Douglas Trumball for example). I'm sorry to sound so wound up, but all I have tried to do here is submit a four sentence biography of my father to be helpful and it feels like it's prompted an editorial feeding frenzy.
It seems to me he was part of the special effects team on the film. Maybe it should be worded to reflect that fact. To imply he won an individual Oscar seems wrong to me. Sionk (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've crossed over - apologies. I amended the text to say 'an Academy Award' rather than 'the Academy Award', but I will amend again to reflect the fact that a team of people won. I will also look into why AMPAS name the individuals that they do as recipients out of the large team of people in a visual effects crew. It's nearly always the effects supervisors and cinematographer, but often others too. Even they get it wrong though, as surely H.R.Giger was part of the art department - that has always confused me.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip Diggle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk (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.
Hi Sionk! Thanks for looking over the Studio V Architecture page. The reason I resubmitted my article for review without editing is because this is what my previous reviewer suggested -- He said he could go "either way" with this article and recommended another review by someone else. Having said that, I'm very happy to work on the article and improve it according to your advice! I was wondering if I could have some specific direction as to how to improve the sources: this firm's work has been published widely in national and local newspapers (New York Times, Business Week, CBS News, etc) as well as in many trade publications (for example, Architect's Newspaper). These are the sorts of references I have used--articles that specifically discuss Studio V's architecture, or programs of nationally recognized design conferences where the principal architect has lectured on the topics at hand, and in which the firm. Considering this, perhaps it is the formatting of my citations that is throwing off the article? If not, could you give me some other directional advice? Thank you again for all your help! Karen Zabarsky (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)KarenZ[reply]
Editing of the JULIA page
Hi Sionk. Thank you for reviewing the JULIA page. I put now more emphasis on the fact that JULIA is a product of Julia Srl, but the page is on the product/tool. The references at the end are my scientific papers where the theory underlying JULIA is described. Should I remove them?
You have recently rejected my submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klaudia.darbinova/sandbox due to my referencing not providing enough evidence on the subject's notability. My references come from real newspapers only from a while ago. Please kindly advise why have you rejected my submission?
Many thanks for your feedback. I have a printed version of the Messenger article. I can perhaps show you a scanned copy?
I don't suppose you can advise me what I can do in order to get this article published?
There has been a lot of kind words said about Potter on various company websites for whom he's previously done some consultancy etc. Can I reference those or would it not help?
I have a minor point to make regarding the coordinates for Ballyhannon Castle. They are listed as 52°47′56″N 8°54′17″W, but this is a point about 300 meters away on the small road leading up to the castle. The more accurate coordinates are 52°80'142"N 8°90′83″W.
You're more than welcome to edit the coordinates yourself if you think they are inaccurate. They're included in the information added to the 'Infobox' between the curly brackets at the top of the article code. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sionk,
You have passed my article on Eugene Sharrer for inclusion, but awarded it a C-grade and posted two labels, that it needs additional citations for verification and it is an orphan article. I dispute all three of these.
Firstly, the grading. The detailed criteria talk about "gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research". I'm afraid I don't recognise any of these and would be grateful if you would either explain your grading or revise it to a B, which is more credible.
Secondly, in citations, you have inserted three "citation needed" at three points. The first, immediately after Sharrer'd name I really don't understand, as (other than his birth certificate) I'm not sure what the citation could be. The second, about his birth and origins is covered by citation number 1 and the third seems to ask for a citation to say there is no evidence for something, which seems impossible.
Thirdly, as to it being an orphan article, this is partly true, but for a reason. There is a long list of Malawi-related articles requiring to be created but which do not exist at present. This article would naturally link to articles on the British Central Africa Company and the other early settlers of Malawi, what they did, and their enterprises, most of which I either have up for review (one), in preparation (two) or under consideration (four). It is however quite demotivating to receive a reaction such as yours and I am wondering if I really want to continue with this.
It was a borderline decision in my opinion. I was unsure whether Sharrer had been widely written about or whether the article contained significant amounts of original research.
The 'clean-up' templates are not meant as a punishment, they are there to help improve the article. However, I've removed the 'orphan' tag because I've added him to the List of entrepreneurs, so he now has at least one link.
Obviously, source one is available online and I can't see any reference to his nationality or place of birth (or his full birth name). These are important facts which need to be verifiable (in published sources). Clearly you've obtained them from somewhere so you'll be able to be more specific, I expect.
Dear Sionk,
I have added extra references. I think that, at first, I did not wish to include too many of these. Sharrer is a very elusive character who had never had a biography and never wrote about himself (we don't even know his birth and death dates, and I have never come across a photo). He was however a fairly important early figure in Malawi. This means his story had to be pieced together from a few words here and a few more there. However, I accept that the article should include all these scattered fragments.
You have just rejected by Silk Central submission at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silk_Central. With the message: "Please improve the article before re-submitting it. As the previosu reviewer says, we need to see more evidene of the product's notability - specifically more independent secondary sources that talk about the product in some depth." .
I am afraid I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I did add another source for notability. All of the links provided are completely independent and reliable bodies.
I suspect you may have not had the time to see some of the links properly :). I have read and feel a good understanding of wikipedia's notability guidelines and I would be convinced the article meets the regulations. Could you please be more specific as to why are all these sources not enough? Thanks a lot! We have been having issues with this article for quite a while now - I will send you a pack of cookies if you help us.
Hi there,
Thanks for reviewing the page I proposed on Delphix. You mentioned that it sounded too much like a marketing page or advertising, I'd be happy to change it if you can give me some pointers. I modeled this after similar industry, size, or related companies, e.g.:
You have recently rejected my submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dan_Pallotta because you believed that too much of the article cited works by Pallotta. I have changed many of the financial and principal sources for this article to a Harvard Business School case study on Pallotta's organization by Profs. Grossman and Kind, which confirms the same information, leaving the citations drawn from Pallotta's work primarily for personal information that simply could not be acquired from any where else. But I'd also like to point out that the references drawn from Pallotta are from academically published works as well as publicly available financial statements from his company. Given that his work was published by Tufts University Press, who vetted the material, it seems like more than a bonafide source.
Frankly I think you were a bit hasty in rejecting this submission and ought to reconsider and perhaps even look at the sources since they are more than academically reputable. Especially now that I have been able to confirm all of the material data from the Harvard Study as well as a New York Times article. I'd appreciate you reconsidering your earlier review and taking another look at your earliest convenience.
In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to review this work and offer your critique.
Someone else has accepted the article, I'm not sure why. In its current state the article is poorly sourced and quite promotional. I've removed and edited some inappropriate parts. See comment on Talk page. Sionk (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"blogspot" is the clue in the URL - this is someone's personal blog so extremely unlikely to have the reliable journalistic standards of a news source, such as a newspaper or magazine. Sionk (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
