User talk:FoCuSandLeArN

This is my talk page.

If you wish to ask why an article you submitted was declined, see some general advice here: User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/AFC declines

If this advice does not answer your questions, then for the fastest response try:

* AFC Help Desk

* unofficial live chat

Or please to leave me a message.

I always respond on my talkpage unless instructed to do so elsewhere.

Re: A page you started (Girlanda Silva Palace) has been reviewed!

Hi, thanks for your review. We have seen a problem about the url of the article Girlanda Silva Palace that influences the title of the article itself: the real name is Ghirlanda Silva Palace. May you change it?

I'm doing civil service at Brugherio's library. At our library we contribute to the GLAM project WiBrugherio, whose first step is to create a multilingual tourist guide of the city using QR codes generated by QRpedia. I'm translating the Italian articles that you can see here, but someone in the en.wiki community says our English is not good enough. It would be very helpful if you could revise our drafts as Girlanda Silva Palace. At the time, we translated these three articles Saint Lucius, Villa Brivio, Villa Fiorita. Thank you very much for your help! FrOsmetti (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I've fixed the title. I'd be more than happy to check your articles! I'll go over Villa Fiorita, Ghirlanda Palace and Villa Brivio today. Let me know if there's anything else I could do. Best of luck, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A C de la Rive article

Hello, I am the author of that article, and the first paragraph (or the intro) was, at one time, only the first sentence, and had nothing about him being notable, which had to be added over Sulfurboy denying the article, without reading it, or evidently checking AC de la Rive for notoriety, as the rest of the links did that throughout the rest of the article. I decided to show him both sides notable mentions, including the conspiracists and the scholarly authors. The Wikipedia article on Leo Taxil, who was AC de la Rive's publishing friend, only has one source cited, but was published. Plus, he was also a French author. When I asked Sulfurboy about Taxil and the Taxil Hoax, he knew nothing of it, but feels he is qualified to review an article that he knows nothing of? I also made sure the citations all show the page numbers of the books, citing the source, except one, since it's online version only shows a chapter per page. I will try to find it today, and get the direct page numbers, instead of using chap. 1.

AC de la Rive wrote three paragraphs in his book, Woman and child in Universal Freemasonry, about Albert Pike, the US Confederate General, lawyer, and judge, who has two statues in Washington DC. Those paragraphs were a fallacy, stating that Pike claimed that Adonay (God), and lucifer were one and the same, which came from the Taxil Hoax, and was later recanted. It caused a lot of the hatred toward Freemasonry worldwide, and many conspiracists and several church denominations still quote what he wrote, claiming it to be real. AC de la Rive is mentioned under Leo Taxil, the Taxil Hoax, anti-Masonry, Luciferian Doctrine, and Edith Starr Miller's pages, on Wikipedia, as I write this, and is tied to them. He also has his own article on the French Wikipedia website. If you notice, I did try to keep this article as neutral as possible, and actually shows AC de la Rive in a good light, since he recanted all he wrote that were fallacies.--Craxd1 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of his influence in propagating the Lucifer-Masonry hoax, hence my comments he's likely notable. I've found plenty of coverage about him since posting my comments. I'll give the article another look today and probably accept it. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will remove the notability portion if you want, as that really does not belong there, but it is up to the reviewers.--Craxd1 (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, as I'll be copy editing the whole thing. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I corrected the citation for the book, Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry, and found that the source I used, on Wikipedia, had the chapter wrong, and the one on the internet. This was all corrected, and the page numbers added. I would suggest removing the rest of the introduction, right after the 1st citation. Neither sides literature really needs to be shown for notoriety, only what is before the 1st citation.--Craxd1 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest rephrasing it to explain the Masonry bit concisely for the introduction. After all, it's his main notability claim. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Give me a bit, and I'll do my best to modify that, and get in more concise.--Craxd1 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I finished the Into, but still left the one portion I mentioned about who cited his works at the end of the intro, and will leave it up to you to remove that or not. Thanks for the help, it is appreciated.--Craxd1 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured I better give you a heads up. The article was perfect as you placed it. Later, I was viewing the article on Chick track, and added a citation to Brent Morris book, Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry, and one to a website, in the section for critics. Both the book and website are critical of Chick. An editor, and you know the one, deleted them, and when I admitted I was a Freemason, he looked under my name for my contributions and edits, and tried to either edit out, or revert, any article I had contributed to or edited. When I reverted this article back to yours, which he had slashed, purposely, since he is a biased religious editor, he tagged it. You'll have to look at the talk. Anyhow, I am not against anyone editing it, as long as they're neutral, which he is not, and clearly religiously biased. Not only did he purposely butcher our article, but he did the ones on the Taxil Hoax and the Luciferian Doctrine, which was libelous, stating plainly that Freemasons worshiped Lucifer. I had edited this page, making it not so. He preferred the libelous version, and reverted it, which I had to revert back. All these were months old, and discussed in their talk pages, with no negative comments to the edits. The editor would have never known, if I hadn't been at the chick track article. Also, please see about having his tag removed.--Craxd1 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Signac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Signac. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Felix Riebl

A solo album and his work with the Gondwana Choirs doesn't count as notability? - why does Chris Martin have a Wikipedia page and not just the Coldplay one - Felix Riebl fits into the same category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hc94 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Martin easily passes WP:GNG due to extensive coverage about him per se, regardless of his role in Coldplay. The references you've provided do not constitute extensive coverage about Riebl. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused what constitutes an 'independent' reference - what kind of reference is not an interview/press release/etc.? This is the only aspect of the Wikipedia notability guidelines which Felix Riebl does not comply with. Yet see Marcus Mumford as an example that most pages of musicians in bands don't either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hc94 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)