User talk:Sionk/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Article on William Casey King

Hi Sionk,

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

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 : 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 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Glad the message finally reached you! The earlier message exlained what sort of edits are minor. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ferrers Specialist Arts College

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? (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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, 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)

You recently created one of them, didn't you? It looks like Template:Nicholls State Colonels coach navbox has been proposed for deletion, so hopefully the problem should be solved soon. Sionk (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

DOT DOT DOT (artist) connected contributors

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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 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.

MrArmstrong2 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwayne and Dwight Bosman

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. Ryan Vesey 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that they won an Emmy? At the moment it is unclear who (or what) won the award. Sionk (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I wish I couldce about them receiving it, but this and this refer to them as Emmy award winning. Ryan Vesey 16:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
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)

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.

Tim Ayling (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

Tim Ayling (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about editing page

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

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?

Fausto.spoto (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejected Submission

Dear Sionk,

You have recently rejected my submission 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?

Klaudia.darbinova (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sionk,

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?

Klaudia.darbinova (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Element Pictures

Hi Sionk.Thanks for reviewing my article for creation. Would this new link help the article to be publish ant_ie (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ballyhannon Castle

Hi Sionk,

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.

Best regards,

CorneliusWilliam (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[1] when you enter the location address 'Ballyhannon Castle, Ireland'

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)

Many thanks, Sionk. I've made those minor changes now. CorneliusWilliam (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Sharrer

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.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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.
Any further discussion is probably better placed on the article's Talk page. Kind regards Sionk (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Silk Central

Hi Sionk,

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.


JorgefGarcia (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delphix Page / Sounds too Marketing

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.:

These have various levels of information, but are all accepted pages for similar concepts. Please let me know if you have suggestions on changes.

Aquineas (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the submission further - based on the decline, I'm assuming that either the products or customer related sections are considering to much like marketing? I can remove these. Alternatively, a few of the references were based off of Delphix press releases - are these the items that you're concerned about?


Aquineas (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - appreciate the time. I've updated the references, removed content, and removed the items that you pointed out. Would you mind taking a look and the new condensed page? Thank you:

Aquineas (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rejected Submission: Dan Pallotta

Dear Sionk,

You have recently rejected my submission 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.

a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirawker (talkcontribs) 02:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Your edits are actually quite erroneous. It's clear you lack an understanding of both the case and litigation. Please leave this article alone until you have vetted the material, i.e. read up the facts beyond one article you googled. Your edit in fact inverts the facts of the case exactly against the evidence. Thank you for your efforts thus far but they are no longer required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirawker (talkcontribs) 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You've no authority to tell editors not to edit certain articles. Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone. The very large section on Pallotta's legal disputes seemed quite one-sided and, evidently discussing legal matters, would need to be very reliably sourced. If you wish to discuss the article further the best place to do so would be the article's Talk page. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

it's not a matter of authority. But frankly you seem clearly outside of your area of expertise and it's a waste of time to fix mistakes in your superficial research. In any case, the litigation material is now sourced to the actual court documents as provided by an arbitrary mediator. We can continue this on the talk page if you're really that invested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirawker (talkcontribs) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am still working on Thinking and Destiny. Would this page be considered a reliable source? (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"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)

Johan Neerman

Hello! I read your notice. I added "Le Soir", like reference, because it proves that Johan Neerman worked with IDPO and that he took over the family business like you can see from his father words (A 70 ans, fatigué, le designer s'apprête à passer la main à son fils, Johan). In addition there are also articles in Febvre, Jacqueline; Isabelle Monier (September 2001). I.D.P.O.-Neerman Consulting that proves Johan Neerman took over business. Kind regards,Julia Williams123 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Niemeyer

Please see my comments in Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Frivolous Consultant

I have seen that you have declined my article like, apparently, many of the other people here. When I read what the reason was, I think there was a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to coin a new term; I just don't know what the right name is. I haven't come across any name, and to talk about it, I needed a name. It dosn't matter to me what it's called just as long as it makes it. If that was the main reason you didn't accept it, it would be nice if you could reconsider. If there was more reasoning, I would like to know. Also, I would rather the article be brutally edited and make it than be thought of as all or nothing and have it be nothing. If you want to see it again, it's Frivolous Consultant (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on Asbestos-related diseases

Hi Sionk, thank you for reviewing my article on Asbestos-related disease. I have resubmitted the article as I wanted to get a second opinion as suggested by previous reviewer. I think that this should be a separate article not just a section in article on asbestos as previously suggested. The reason is that "Asbestos-related diseases" is a medical term used by health and occupational professionals to describe any disease related to asbestos exposure and would be frequently searched by Wiki users. This is an overarching article of all diseases induced by asbestos and such as I thought it should be a separate topic. The main focus was on benign asbestos diseases that has not been yet covered on Wikipedia even though they are as important and common as mesothelioma or asbestosis. Could you please reconsider your decision or explain why it can not have its own page? Thanks a lot. Silvousis --Silvousis (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, thank you very much for reconsidering my article and your useful suggestions for article improvement. I have clarified my sources by replacing the abbreviations with full titles of the journals. I have also added the URLs to all articles as suggested. I am open to any other suggestions for improvement in future. Thank you. Silvousis --Silvousis (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Rapid Results lnstitute

Hi Sionk,

You recently rejected my submission at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rapid_Results_Institute. Your reasoning was that the article was about the technique, rather than the institute itself. I would argue that the two go hand-in-hand, and that the majority of the sources all refer to direct interventions of the institute itself or to members of the institute. Would you be willing to review the sources and reconsider your decision?

If not, how would you recommend I fix it? Should I simply change the title to "Rapid Results Approach" and make some edits accordingly?

Thanks for your review, and thanks in advance for your help. Hope to hear back from you soon.


Elias al-Amin (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

I just wanted to see if you've had the chance to look over my page and provide some more feedback. Would really appreciate your help on improving it (it's my first page). It's been a few days, so thought I'd give a gentle reminder in case you didn't notice my comment or forgot to reply. Thanks again for your review, and looking forward to hearing back.

Best, --Elias al-Amin (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on TheFormTool

Sionk -- Thank you for commenting on my submission of TheFormTool. I will add independent sources as you suggest.

However, I'm sorry to see the inconsistent treatment. The submission on TheFormTool already has many more independent references than another product in somewhat the same space to which I referred an earlier editor. That product has none. not one independent reference of any kind. That article was set for review, was reviewed, and is still standing.

Why the one and not the other?


Bob Leibowitz (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Bob

With the HotDocs article, the participants in the AfD discussion found several decent news sources. Unfortunately no one has added them to the article yet. But if you see any other poor articles you're welcome to point them out. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Society for Electroanalytical Chemistry

Hi Sionk,

You rejected my submission at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The Society for Electroanalytical Chemistry. You said that the book did not mention SEAC but it did.Page 141, Debra R. Rolison I added this to the reference then. SEAC and its awards are recognized by a lot of academic institutes like cornell univeristy and princeton university, American Chemical society and internatioanl conferences Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, just as I referenced. Would you be willing to review the sources and reconsider your decision? If they are not enough, would you suggest what else I can add.

Thanks for your review.


(talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ISTDP Notability issue

I've gone through the inline citations and made sure all first author names appear on the References list. This makes it clearer that there are numerous investigators publishing results on ISTDP in medical journals besides the founder of the technique. I have also updated the list of textbooks about the technique in the Further Reading section to include all textbooks published by recognized academic publishers between 1985 and 2012, many by authors other than Davanloo. Will this suffice to establish notability by demonstration of reasonably wide attention within secondary sources? If so, would you (or may I) remove the warning from the top of the page?Rtarzwell (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AfC/Carol Roth

Hello! I have made some improvements to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carol Roth. You earlier declined the submission based on sourcing and promotional language. Rather than just resubmit, I figured I would first ask if you would care to review the article again. The prose is still somewhat stilted, and the article can definitely use expansion - but I believe it's ready for mainspace. Feel free to comment here or at the AfC. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With a few additional changes, I have moved the article to Carol Roth. Thanks for your review, and please feel free to comment if you see anything else. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

your decline on Ken Rus Schmoll

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Rus Schmoll --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Rottenburg

This might be a misunderstanding, but Richard Rottenburg holds not a named Chair of a university Department but holds "a chair of Anthropology". I tried to make it clearer. Any comments and help are appreciated. --Normanschraepel (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your article says he is "Chair of the Anthropology and Philosophy Department at the University of Halle-Wittenberg". Sionk (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which means (to my understanding also in the anglophone academic tradition) that he is a full professor as defined here Professor and here List of academic ranks. I also added a reference to this site, where it is stated that he has the Chair for Section 1 Law, Organisation, Science and Technology (LOST) with a regional focus on Africa. What would you suggest to avoid further misunderstandings? If you are confused about the two affiliations - Department of Anthropology and Philosophy and Institute for Social and Cultural Anthropology - please consider that the Department has different institutes. But this should become clear when reading the 'Academic life' section of the article. --Normanschraepel (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sater Design Collection

Hi Sionk,

I have added many references from news articles, and other 3rd party sources verifying both Dan F. Sater and his role in designing prominent things like the Villa Ilvrea and other articles that speak to his notability.

Let me know if you think that is ready now with those additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahR79 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AFC: Crown the Empire

Sionk, in regards to CTE page, what specifically is not adequate in the page? In accordance with WP: Notability (Music) criteria, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." I added references that prove this from Billboard (specifically number 1 on heat seekers as the highlight). What else is required to meet notability? Cheers, Mariolennox (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Women in photography

Hello Sionk. Sometime since we have been in touch. Hope all is well. Last year you were an enthusiastic contributor to our coverage of women in architecture in connection with Women's History Month. This year I have suggested we should do something along the same lines for women in photography. I'm trying to rally some support from the Women's History project and have notified Hoary from WP History of photography. I know your main interest is architecture but I just wondered whether I could persuade you to become involved this time too. I intend to start by improving the list of women photographers along the lines of list of female architects. The rest you know. --Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a strong area of knowledge for me. I'm a keen photographer but can barely name any important photographers! Sounds like an interesting and worthwhile exercise all the same, so have fun! Sionk (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right to stick to the areas you know well. I tend to be a bit of a Jack of all trades.--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And there was me thinking you were 'Mr Danish Architecture' ;) Sionk (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken Russ Schmoll

Hi -- I hope you don't mind if I continue the discussion with you about this page:

a bit farther?

I totally take your point that the article needs to be bulked up, and will take another whack at it, but in the larger sense I'm still a bit perplexed on how to establish notability in the case of a stage director.

Part of the conundrum is that if you asked the average American who the most famous living playwrights are many of them could name *someone* -- Tony Kushner, David Mammet, Sam Shepard -- but almost no one who doesn't follow theater closely could name a famous stage director (Mike Nichols is an exception, but he became famous with films). Directors are seldom the focus of an article or a review. So a director can be very notable in the field indeed before there's a great deal of material which specifically focuses on them and their achievements. Playwrights, for example, can have only one or two productions, and still have a lot more in the way of supporting material.

I've been looking at pages of notable directors. These are some examples:

(there are also a lot of listings for directors who have had far fewer productions or honors than Schmoll has)

and the formatting for these articles is all over the map. In some of them the plays are listed within the body of a paragraph, which seems to me harder to make sense of. In others they're listed as I did. If the shows or theaters or playwrights have Wiki pages, those are linked to (as I largely did in mine -- I could be more thorough) but the production itself is never actually cited. In Schmoll's case these are mainly major New York and regional theaters, which, in the theater world establishes a degree of notability.

Most of the productions listed have received notably positive reviews, from many sources, and especially from the New York Times -- no review of a play focuses exclusively on the director but there are a lot of quotes which mention him very specifically, and very positively -- but I didn't want to include those quotes because I thought that would seem like PR fluff. I did include, in the external links section, year end best-of lists his plays are included on.

And then in terms of the Obies -- do I need to establish the notability of an award itself? They aren't an in-house magazine award; the Village Voice administers them but they're judged by a rotating panel of notable theater professionals and are a significant award in the field, probably loosely comparable to the Independent Spirit Award in film. They aren't the Tonys, but you'll still seem them listed all over theater professional's bios, and in marketing materials for theaters.

I think what I'm saying is that although he is not well known to the general public, he is well known and respected within the field, which falls within the Wikipedia notability guidelines yes? I'm not disputing the need to make this case better, but I feel that there are particular challenges in this area and if you have any insights on how I can particularly convey them that would be much appreciated.

Thanks so much Glodark (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Guilllaume Lo-A-Njoe

Thank you for reviewing my first article.I would like to sat the artist has already a dutch and german wiki and is worthy of inclusion. I have read the guidelines you sent and can inform that his works are present in notable museums worldwide.Also his art sold at auctions of esteemed auctioneers. I am at a loss what to do now.This being my first article. Can you do more than just reviewing it and rejecting it please? Have others look at it? Improve it? Edit it? I look forward to structural help,it is quite disappointing that the articel is rejected in its entirity. Thanks for more help to clear it up or advice. Also anyone is more than welcome to make their own changes,I thought that Wikipedia is about that? Improve articles by editing and stating as many sources as possible. Thanks in advance for more feedback and edits on the article.

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

Hey Sionk! Thanks for your thoughtful answer in the Teahouse about what to do with an ip editor who kept adding inappropriate content to a disambiguation page and who wasn't communicating with other editors. I think you gave a really fair and sound overview of how to handle that situation. Thanks for doing that!

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi t | c 16:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou!! I didn't even realise there was a Teahouse badge, but it looks very smart so I'll happily accept it :) Sionk (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

2YOON article

Thanks for reviewing my article on 2YOON :)

I've made the notability more apparent this time, hope it's good this time!

In accordance to wiki's guide on music notability, 2YOON has met the following criteria:

1. 2YOON have been mentioned by SPIN and TIME.
2. 2YOON's EP peaked at 7 on the national Korean music chart.
7. 2YOON is the first group to fuse country and K-Pop
8. 2YOON has performed a live version of the OST for School 2013 on the special episode of the drama, being the original singers.
11. 2YOON has performed live in televised South Korean music shows such as
a) Show! Music Core - weekly from 19 Jan 2013 to 16 Feb 2013 (4 appearances)
b) Music Bank - weekly from 18 Jan 2013 to 15 Feb 2013 (5 appearances)
c) M! Countdown - weekly from 17 Jan 2013 to 14 Feb 2013 (5 appearances)
d) Inkigayo - weekly from 20 Jan 2013 to 17 Feb 2013 (5 appearances)

and various national radio broadcasts:
i) MBC Shim Shim TaPa on 22 Jan 2013
ii) MBC Jung Oh's Hope Song on 29 Jan 2013
iii) SBS Power FM Boom's Youngstreet

as well as several korean variety shows such as
MBC Weekly Idol on 30 Jan 2013
Mnet Beatles' Code on 04 Feb 2013
Mnet Wide Entertainment News on 17 Jan 2013
KBS Hello Counselor on 04 Feb 2013

Hope that this is more than enough to prove the notability of 2YOON as musicians. If there are any changes required to be made on the article, please let me know and I will rectify them. Thanks a million :) The updated article is here. - Sqra (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The British Central Africa Company Ltd

Dear Sionk,

Thank you for reviewing and re-grading the article I produced on The British Central Africa Company Ltd.

I do realise the great job that reviewers are doing, particularly in view of the backlog of articles, and hope that my request made this clear. This is something I would like to get involved with at a later stage, but first I need to find my feet negotiating Wikipedia.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Les Grottes de Ferrand

Hi Sionk, I wanted to touch base with you to let you know of one more "source" that I had deleted intentionally from my first post attempt. You said "if only the local council has written about it, the subject probably isn't suitable for Wikipedia at the moment." I have done an extensive search for more information with regard to the history of this place, but could not come up with much more than I cited, except for this blog: [2] I had deleted it, since it seemed blogs were not deemed acceptable sources, but if you could possibly let me know if it is, in fact acceptable, I will add it. My other question is: since there is not much available history with regard to Les Grottes de Ferrand, can the entry be made up solely of photographs and location, since those are the very basics? This place is quite amazing, and I have never seen anything quite like it. While it isn't the grandest of sights, it is an unusual and intriguing part of the area's history. I thank you for complementing my photos, and I would love to see if there is any way I can share this wonderful place! Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated...

Thank you, Funkydive (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

Teahouse First Birthday Badge Teahouse First Birthday Badge
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!

To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A dragon for you

800x480-Y Ddraig Goch.png Hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi!
Happy St David's Day to you.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Diolch!! Sionk (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

AFC submission: Michael A. Potter review

You and others previously declined the AfC submission Michael A. Potter.

I am asking all past reviewers to join the discussion about this article's current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


I actually have an identical issue on my own talk page, so I think it's only those whom haven't edited their signatures that have a working "talk" button on their own page. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Not Accepted

Hi Sionk, Thank you for reviewing the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Matthew Ray.I'm sorry to bother you with this,but I was wondering if you could please tell me exactly where I went wrong with the references,and what I need to do in order to improve them as I really haven't a clue.These are the only references I have,and I don't honestly know what more I can do.Jason McRay 01:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McRay (talkcontribs) Hi again Sionk.Just to let you know that I have now added and hopefully improved the references on the article and I have resubmitted it,so please feel free to look it over again if you can.Jason McRay 13:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McRay (talkcontribs)

Article on Candida Baker - Author

Hi Sion,

I have taken on board your reasons for knocking back my submission on Candida Baker. Please review the latest version, which includes many secondary references.

Hi Sion, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgina Louise Francis (talkcontribs) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed your suggestions for this article on the well known and highly respected Australia journalist and author, Candida Baker. I did not reference the entry that you edited correctly. I have returned to the page and successfully included many citations. Could you please review the latest version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgina Louise Francis (talkcontribs) 01:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

W. Mark Sutherland

Hello Sionk, I have reviewed your comment about not having enough reference material for the subject, but isn't 17 sources enough? Should I be looking for a specific type of reference I am not using now?

Also, the subject is referenced in his various other wiki pages: Paul Dutton:

Does that carry any weight?

Jonstainton (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)JonStainton

Article declined: Mr Crabtree Goes Fishing

Thank you for reviewing my article. I hope I've edited it to reflect your comments. Please could you have a look at it and let me know if you feel it needs more work. Victoriawallop (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emily Hunter

I take your point about it not being an article. I asked Ecohuntress if she has any relationship to Emily Hunter (she started by editing Robert Hunter's article) but no answer, however.... The AfC's creator just removed a cite to the Guardian newspaper from Robert Hunter, changing it to I've reverted that. I've also raised a copyvio issue at User talk:Moonriddengirl as there is material in the AfC I think is copied from [1] - I just want to make sure I haven't missed anything that might show it's copyreverse. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl deleted the copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Declined Article: "Zachary Esters"

Hi Sionk! Thank you for your review on my Wikipedia article, "Zachary Esters."

Your comment on the article was as stated: "I don't get the connection between Esters and the Grammy Awards - there's no proof provided here! Sionk (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)"

There was nothing about the Grammy Awards mentioned in the article. The only award mentioned was a "Grand Award," which was the title of the award won by my subject in the Songdoor International Songwriting Competition, which is referenced.

I'd love a second review if possible and any additional comments/advice. Thank you so much for all of your hard work! (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake! If his song had been nominated for a major award he'd undoubtedly be a candidate for a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately I don't think the awards he's won are major. Sionk (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Meena Kandasamy

Would you mind re-visiting the page? Vensatry (Ping me) 18:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Kasey Anderson Article

While I won't argue that Kasey Anderson is not a household name, He is fairly well known in the Seattle/Portland Music scene, and among modern alt-country fans. His most recent two albums have recieved national reviews. Four of his past five albums are available on ITunes and and CDUniverse. His music is also reviewed on all All of which indicate that he is sufficiently widely known to be cited in Wikipedia. Furthermore, he is already referenced in at least two other existing Wikipedia articles: Underwater Sunshine (The Counting Crows latest record) and the The Presidents of the United States of America (band).

Here are additional references as you requested:

Additional references to Kasey Anderson’s current legal trouble: Seattle PI: Charge: Rocker impersonated prisoner’s wife, Springsteen’s managers

Kasey Anderson, Fraud: Faked Benefit Album with Bruce Springsteen, Tom Waits, Willie Nelson, Others And discussed in Music Blogs: Roughstock: Alt-Country Singer Kasey Anderson Indicted On Federal Wire Fraud Charges Kasey Anderson stole, lied and cheated but it still isn’t what it seems

As you can see from the following references, Kasey Anderson was a well know (regional) alt-country artist prior to his federal indictment: CONCERT REVIEW: KASEY ANDERSON AND THE HONKIES (WITH MILES OF WIRE AND THE DIVE POETS) CAST A WIDE ROCK ‘N’ ROLL NET AT OFF BROADWAY, MONDAY, JULY 30:

PASTE Magazine: Roots Roundup - Kasey Anderson, The Holmes Brothers, Guitar ..

ITunes Kasey Anderson Artist Biography: Biography With his world-weary voice and gritty, narrative-driven songs, Kasey Anderson has drawn comparisons to Americana and alt-country artists like Steve Earle, Tom Waits, Nebraska-era Bruce Springsteen, and Ryan Adams. Bouncing between the folk scenes of Bellingham, WA, and Portland, OR, Anderson has become a regional favorite and has attracted some national press attention for his five albums, 2001's Harold St. Blues, 2004's Dead Roses, 2007's The Reckoning, 2009's Way Out West, and 2010's Nowhere Nights, all of which were produced by Eric Ambel and recorded at Ambel's Cowboy Technical Sources studio in Brooklyn, NY.

Rock’nRoll Report Cd Review: Heart of the Dog Hybrid Magazine Review: Less than positive review on Redefine Magazine:

Stereo Subversion Interview

Mpsumm2 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Candida Baker - Author

Hi Sion, I have taken on board your reasons for knocking back my submission on Candida Baker. Please review the latest version, which includes many secondary references.

Hi Sion, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgina Louise Francis (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed your suggestions for this article on the well known and highly respected Australia journalist and author, Candida Baker. I did not reference the entry that you edited correctly. I have returned to the page and successfully included many citations. Could you please review the latest version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgina Louise Francis (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgina Louise Francis (talkcontribs)

Georgina Louise Francis (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kei Orihara

You say:

rm unsourced DOB, also rm stub template, added 'primary sources' tag - cited mainly to works *by* Orihara

The DoB was and is sourced, to p.88 of a book oddly given the English alternative title 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers. Do you have a copy? I have my own in front of me right now. Virtually nothing within the article is sourced to anything by Orihara, and one simple reason for this is that I don't have a copy of either of her major books.

Please reread the article, slowly and carefully. And take a look at the talk page, too. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for reviewing my article. Please help me however as I am not certain which of the citations have caused you to decline. I addressed all of them following a decline in January, with a Wikipedia editor who has been writing and editing articles since the very beginning. She is at a loss as well. MildredJirak MildredJirak (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Page Rejected Twice - Not Sure Why

After my first submission, I understood why it was rejected and made the necessary changes. My second review came back saying to review the first rejection for why it was rejected again...but I already made all those changes, so I don't understand why this isn't being accepted:


Ameuwissen (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Henri Cliquet-Pleyel

Hello Sionk, Despite editing articles on Wikipedia for years, I guess I'm not entirely clear on the protocol for the creation of new articles. I was under the impression that anyone could create an article, yet I find the first article I submit rejected by another user?? What I expected was that the article would be created, and then, if anyone had issues with it, they would edit it.

Regardless, I'm not entirely clear on the reason for the rejection. French Wiki has an article on Cliquet-Pleyel; English Wiki did not. At the very least it would seem that English Wiki should have, if not my article, then a translation of the French article? And you say that my article is "better" than the one in French Wiki, so ...??

Cliquet-Pleyel is established as a historically significant composer, of the group which revered Satie. As noted, he composed one of the very rare piano concertos for right hand alone (there are many for the left hand alone; Wiki has an entire article on these). That fact alone would seem to argue for the creation of an article on Cliquet-Pleyel.

Shouldn't the article be created first, and then others left to enhance it as they see fit? (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I left my advice on the draft article. Articles need to meet a minimum standard of notability and verifiability before they are moved to Wikipedia's main article space. Citing an entire book to verify a fact seems unreasonable, it would only be possible for someone to verify it if they knew the page number(s). Because you have access to the book it is better you add them now, before the article is forgotten about.
I get the impression there aren't many people active on French Wikipedia. The French article is completely unsourced and is very poor! Sionk (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom Holland


Can I ask you why you pay so much attention to editing Tom Holland article? I am interested because I am its creator and the main contributor who provided about 90% of content, and I don't think your actions help to improve the article. While some your interventions were helpful (e.g., you just undid some obvious vandalism - although it would have been corrected anyway very quickly), some others have been doubtul. In the past your editing resulted in inserting factually wrong information (I can provide example, if necessary), and your latest removal of large chunks of the text looks unjustified.

More specifically, you have removed a citation taken from Naomi Watts's interview because "that's what luvvies say about one another. No need to repeat every word" and "too wordy and quote unnecessarily long/off topic". I found these remarks quite patronising (if not rude) and - what is more important - subjective and unjustified. More concretely, I believe that one needs to take into account the context, namely: a superstar characterises a young actor - this is not how "luvvies say about one another" but quite important contribution allowing the readers to understand why this little-known young actor with no previous experience in cinema received such a critical acclaim and numerous awards. Probably, in future when the subject plays more roles, that stuff will be reduced or even completely removed but at this stage of his career those details are significant and are by no means "off topic". That's why I believe your very heavy editing should at the very least be discussed before taking actual actions in such a cavalier manner.

I understand that you have your views what is appropriate in Wiki as well as your tastes but I am not sure that you can proclaim them universal and unchallengeable - especially in case when you are not a proper expert in the subject. In this particular case I am the expert who has done a proper research, and I believe that removing large portions of a well-researched text without any discussion on the basis of personal taste (not mentioning bullish remarks) contradicts the very spirit of Wiki. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor with a lot of achievements but other people have their credentials too and their work deserves respect. If you want to know about me, I am a scientist with PhD who in addition have worked professionally as an editor and journalist (not in English, though) for many years. So I think I know what I am talking about.

Finally, there are thousands of poorly researched articles with very limited sources (many of them about actors) - why you are so eager to "edit" time after time this particular one? Of course, it's by no means ideal but it's obvious that it's properly and comprehensively researched and maintained. I just don't undestand that. Anyway I ask you to undo your latest edits (I don't want to do it myself yet thus starting the bullish cycle that only leads to unnecessary confronation) - and if you are prepared to defend them, let's first discuss them, between ourselves or ask other editors to moderate.

Best wishes, AdVal (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I could turn the question on you and ask why you are spending so much attention promoting Holland, particularly with excessively long, gushing quotes from fellow cast members? Watts spent many months getting to know Holland as a friend (and "son") so is not impartial. If anything, more attention should be paid to what critics say about him.
Anyone is allowed to edit pages on Wikipedia. The Tom Holland page happens to be on my 'watch list', so very occasionally I pay some attention to it.
This conversation needs to take place on the Talk page of the article. Sionk (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Hello, I'm Autumnalmonk. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Tom_Holland_(actor), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the page history it seems like there has been something of an edit war over a paragraph of inappropriate and unsourced material and commentary about the subject's relationships. You have previously removed this material, but your last edit actually reintroduced it so I'm guessing, as you are a very experienced editor, that this was an oversight. I have placed cautions/warnings on the talk pages of all those who have recently re-inserted this material and will be posting an alert on the BLP admin page (if one does not already exist) to aid in keeping controversial unsourced and inappropriate material off Tom_Holland_(actor). My apologies if my caution above was inappropriate or based on a mere oversight. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see the problem. Both AdVal and myself knew that Vintagelady101 was adding poor content but didn't realise she'd added it twice. So when Vintagelady101 removed her second comment, AdVal added it back. Everything then went into reverse and I fell for it too!! Sionk (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, very true! I was in a hurry (dozens of students were waiting for me in a lecture theatre) and as a result my failed logic was exactly as you described. A good lesson. Although, the confusion started a little earlier. Just look at the Revision History: at 00:04 Vintagelady101 inserted her poor content; at 00:41 you, Sionk, removed it; at 00:44 you removed Naomi Watts's words but in a hurry confused the versions - so after that Vintagelady101's stuff was once again there! At 05:47 Vintagelady101 being probably ashamed of herself removed her inappropriate content, but then it was my turn to contribute to the comedy! :) As to our disagreement regarding a proper editing practice I will reply in detail on the Talk page of the article when I have a time, hopefully shortly. I believe that our disagreement is concerned with some core principles, so it should be discusssed, perhaps not only between us. AdVal (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Juniper's Knot

Hello, I was just dropping by to say, in reference to your most recent edit of Juniper's Knot, that although Juniper's Knot does have a forum citation; the forum account cited is owned by Terrance Smith, the writer of the game, which I believe is a good ground for a citation, being a crucial part of the developing team and a staff of Dischan Media, the company that released the game. Most of the synopsis and settings is actually based on the primary source, the game; nonetheless, I know that this is not enough and added citations to justify the text. This is just FYI, as things that seem in a certain perspective might actually be a whole different story. With the previous said, I'm off on a citation hunt!

EDIT: Oh, I forgot; about half of the blogs belong to Dischan Media, and are written by either it's staff or project manager, Jeremy Millers, A.K.A Dani.

Thank you for reading! Link from the Void (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article on Vivian S. Lee

Hi Sionk,

Thank you for taking the time to review the submission for Vivian S. Lee. ( As per your feedback I feel I've adequately evidenced the subject's notability in the academic and medical community and have improved 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 addition, I added multiple citations to secondary reliable sources (newspaper articles, journal articles) that are entirely independent of the subject. Do you have any other advice to help make this article publish-worthy? Thanks in advance!

Gentry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glreiny HSC (talkcontribs) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, re. your rejection of the article on Robbie MacNeill.

re there not being "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." -See the links on the Anne Murray albums which have his songs.

re doesnt "includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles" - It does

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart - yes

international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country - yes, I menioned he toured with big acts

Has won or placed in a major music competition. - yes, noted the BMI award

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. - he has performed extensively on tv, ie John Allan Cameron Show, Jubilee.....check out his inclusion on the Stan Rogers album.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. - yes, CBC has broadcast shows featuring him — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Damien Estreich

Hey Sionk, thanks for the review and comments. I was wondering if I might be able to bug you a bit to find out which references/footnotes that you would like further supported, specifically, by third-party sources. You said that 'Mia Rose' and I am guessing the stuff toward the closing of the article is "okay", it would just help of course to know what references as to Estreich you felt were especially thin to concentrate my efforts on getting extra info.

Thanks again for you time, consideration and of course your work. Chat soon! EnigmaBurn 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC) EnigmaBurn — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaBurn (talkcontribs)

They are all "thin", as far as I can see! As he is allegedly notable (e.g. "first person to be hired by YouTube") for events that are recent and online, I'd expect to see some substantial online coverage, not just brief mentions. We need to see significant coverage about him in reliable, independent sources, to prove he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pyotr Verzilov

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Pyotr Verzilov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mandy Goodhandy Article is Ready for Final Review

Hi Sionk,

Hope you're well. It's Josh Bentley-Swan; I believe we chatted through this Talk function sometime back in February.

I have just finished a thorough edit of Mandy's Wikipedia entry, including a review of the outside news sources used. I believe this entry is now ready for one final edit.

Please let me know what you think of the revised entry. I really appreciate your help with getting this entry to a stage where it can go live

If you would like, you can always reach me through my personal email at:


Josh Bentley-Swan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.bentleyswan (talkcontribs) 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Toowoomba Local History Library

Hi Sionk,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the draft article of the Toowoomba Local History Library. I was just wondering in which areas I would need to make changes/updates in order to avoid promotional contents that you've pointed out in this draft article. If you could advise me specific contents that needs to be taken off or be changed as well as any better approach it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhsunshine (talkcontribs) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1891

Dear Sionk,

Many thanks for reviewing my article on the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1891, and for the Barnstar, which was much appreciated.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article References


Thank you for your feedback on my article. But I have a question about the suggestion that I link to the direct articles for verifiable information on my subject.

Many magazine sites do not keep articles on their sites permanently. And the articles I was referring to were no longer available online. What else can you suggested? Scanned copies of the original articles????

Any help you could give would be most appreciated.

Thank you, Sammi8170 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Sammi8170

Sources don't need to be online. But we'd need full details so anyone could identify them - see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include Sionk (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Dear Sionk: I offered to help out Weir NI with his page about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Felix Kjellberg (2), but before I could get it done, you reviewed it and rejected it. It certainly was in bad shape. However, I've now removed a lot of the fluff and added several references, and I wonder if you might consider taking another look. It seems that millions of people are taking note of this fellow. If you feel that this is inappropriate, I will suggest that Weir NI resubmit. Thanks for your consideration. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still a terrible article, packed with original research ('I looked at his Youtube page yesterday and it said this' sort of stuff) and generally poorly sourced - for example to a blurry image of an unidentifiable magazine article. I wouldn't be happy to pass this fan page at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

re. Robbie MacNeill

revised this article, please have another look. Thanks! (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pyotr Verzilov

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Gilbert (triathlete)

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)