User talk:Chiswick Chap

Chennathur Discussion

Hi Chiswick chap, I have added new sources to my article "Chennathur Village" . Please verify again. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.17.46 (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aleksandar Markovic

Hello Chiswick Chap. I've added some missing citations. Could you check the artilce again, please? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance, Chiswick Chap. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Nick Berar

Hello Chiswick Chap. Could you please help me with neutrality? This is a bare bones submission intended as a stub...patterned after a source on T. Harv Eker. I don't know what I'm missing. Thanks Knightpm (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick. It is not forbidden but considered unwise to submit an article on oneself or one's own business - it is hard to take an objective, neutral standpoint. Much the best thing is to let somebody else do it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia the tone should be cool, calm and (erm) encyclopedic, and everything that's said should be supported by reliable third-party evidence (i.e. not you, not Wikipedia). As for this article, the AfC process does rather militate against stubs; at the least there should be a justifiable statement of what the subject is, with one or two citations. But frankly a bit more context does make it easier for reviewers to make their minds up. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Chiswick Chap.

I'm not Nick :) I don't know how to prove that one to you...but I'd be happy to try. So let's address what I'm missing again. The sources are no different than what exist in the stub for T Harv Eker (which has been published in wikipedia). The publisher of the book is no longer active...so obviously I can't go there. The book does have an ISBN and is referenced by other sites as having existed. It was produced before ebooks existed so no pdfs or electronic excerpts are available. His work is referenced by someone who has used it in the past in a public archive. Those citations are in the article submitted.

I took a lot of context out of previous articles for "neutrality" sake. What else should I do?

Thanks Leslie (author of Powerful Women They're Not Men in Drag <-- best proof I can offer...the book exists) Knightpm (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie, I'm not the whole of Wikipedia with its mass of policies, rules and guidance. All I can tell you is that you'll need to prove the subject is notable, and is adequately supported. Please read the notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and the verifiability guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to see what works well, go and look at the best articles on Wikipedia. For a random well-written biography, look at, say Stephen Hawking. If you want to know why the reviewers are tired, look at the backlog! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, Chiswick Chap. I've read the guidelines and don't see what is missing. I consider T. Harv Eker no more notable than others and no less...the essence of neutral. The "proof" that is offered in his stub does not seem to constitute proof based on the notability guidelines (nor is the proof offered for Berar necessarily less). It appears that the reviewer had personal knowledge of T. Harv Eker, so the submission passed.

You're a volunteer. I get it. I understand you're tired. I am too.

I'll keep at it. We do need some equity in the application of the policy. If the entry for Eker can pass, so should others. Knightpm (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMA OpCon Submission

Hi and thanks for editing my submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SMA_OpCon). I understand your 'advertising' criticism, but I am very concerned that there doesn't seem to be any 'equality' with applying these rules. I modeled my submission after other submissions that have been accepted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMS_Scheduler , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveBatch , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC4 , for example. What is the 'secret sauce' that those pages have that my submission lacks? Thanks for your help!! Neville.kroeger (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Consistency is a huge problem, and we all try our best. In this case, I could also have indicated that the submission was lacking reliable, external references - neither Wikipedia, nor sources connected with the subject, and that would certainly have caused me to decline the submission in its current form. I suggest you add some context to show why the submission is notable, with evidence from authoritative newspaper or magazine reviews. As for other submissions that may have sneaked through the net - they will either be improved by the community, or fed into the Articles for Deletion process. Good luck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Christian Nielsen

Thanks for reviewing Anders Christian Nielsen's page; bummer it got scrapped. A. C. Nielsen was the foundation of the Scandinavian community in Junction City, Oregon, and had he not brought the Danes to the area the annual Scandinavian Festival would not exist. How would you have written the page either to make this point more important or to make A. C. Nielsen more central to the scope of WikiProject Biography?Visitor7 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two things you could do are 1) to provide a little more context (as you've just done informally) with evidence, and 2) to provide references that demonstrate notability unambiguously, e.g. to well-known publications (like the NYT, for instance). Since the article is already correctly structured, I suspect that just a little bit more detail will do the trick. With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your comment on my article. I appreciate your kindness. Reza.moossavi (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! It helps make the work a pleasure. All the best to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last (Unthanks album)

Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		for helping us out at WP:AFC. If you need help on any submission, come to our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect mabdul 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm honoured. And I may say you've already been hugely helpful to me, vielen dank! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda!

Just wanted to give you a thumbs-up for noticing that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda was trying to re-create something the same user had requested deleted repeatedly. Good catch and good decline! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We do our best. If that AfC list gets any longer... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfdex

Hello Chiswick Chap. I understand that not every company should be on Wikipedia, but as I searched the internet for information on "crankcase gas cleaning" and diesel truck emissions I found that Alfdex were noted in many articles and are providing a majority of the diesel truck engine market with the means to reduce air pollution. Thus I found Alfdex to be highly noteworthy and created the article. It seems reasonable that atleast the most notable company within it's market should be noted on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! Kevinortegren (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin. Point well made. If you take evidence (and even if necessary quotations) from those non-Wikipedia articles you mention, together with inline citations (and so, footnotes) then nobody, not even me, will be able to resist the conclusion that Alfdex is in fact notable. I see you are already making some progress in that direction. Lycka till! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Charles Bowra

Thanks for your comments on the Bowra stub [1].

To be frank, my main interest is in Dream of the Red Chamber, of which Bowra made an early translation. I didn't want to put his information on that page, but readers should be able to find out what kind of people were making the early translations. Part of the significance is the pattern which he makes with others who are linked. So I hope you can be a little generous with the article even though Bowra's life was not otherwise outstanding. Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is much improved and looks definitely notable, so the remaining need is to show that the claims are true with inline citations as indicated. It is not sufficient to rely on the pattern made with other Wikipedia articles, though clearly the links are useful. Good work - keep going! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hall article for submission

Hi Chiswick Chap - I've revised the MH article; what do you think?(will there be an issue re the name? There is another MH but it's redirected to a college of Law.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockmiles (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've tidied it up a bit for you, and marked the places which still need citations. I've also renamed it with the gloss "(fashion designer)". We will need to add a disambiguation page for the different MHs when it goes live. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying the article (and adding the gloss) - it looks great! I've added the needed citations. One issue: ==Celebrity Following== is not appearing in the article body(despite appearing fine in the wizard). Would you mind fixing this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockmiles (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a broken /ref tag and the article (Malcolm Hall (fashion designer))now seems fine, so I've accepted it. If there are free images illustrating Hall's wonderful designs, extra links to reviews and shows, or other encyclopedic tidbits, then feel free to add them in Wikipedia style. Well done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munster Journal of Mathematics

Hi, I dont understand why the article on the Munster Journal of Mathematics was rejected:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed so the information can be verified and to establish the notability of the topic.

The information in the article is correct and can easily be verified on the journal's website.

LinusKramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusKramer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linus, I understand your feeling about this. Firstly, let me say that the submission was in fact rejected by another editor, not me --- though I was just about to do the same thing as them. Why? We are not saying the information is wrong - we agree the journal exists as described. Rather, Wikipedia requires independent (3rd party) evidence from sources NOT CONNECTED with the subject of the article to verify that it is notable: this applies to every article in the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what kind of evidence would do in this case? --Linus — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusKramer (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be verifiable comments in some other journal or by famous mathematicians, saying how useful the journal was, I suppose. Take a look at BMJ, an article about a famous medical journal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chiswick Chap. I am still not sure how this could be done. A comparable journal would be the Glasgow Mathematical Journal - I fail to see the difference. The Munster Journal has, for example, a citation index in the Mathematical Reviews which is twice the average. I could include an external reference to this, but this would look rather artificial to me. Besides, only subscribers of the MR could follow this link. LinusKramer (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have told you the principle, which is WP:Verifiability which in turn demonstrates WP:Notability. You are no doubt right that many pages do not do this well. A citation of the Math. Reviews is not artificial, it is a genuine attainment. It is OK that only subscribers could follow it as it is in principle Verifiable - we'd just have to find a subscriber among the WP community to check it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alkyl sulfate

Hi Chiswick Chap,

Thank you for reviewing.

After careful consideration, I think it may be best in order fill in the gaps of related articles for "alkyl sulfate" to have an independent page. This is because not all organosulfates are alkyl sulfates, it is a member of this category like sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate (both which have their own independent pages). Other wiki articles mention alkyl sulfates (such as "Surfactant") but since their is no article exclusive to it, there is no link where someone could read more about this common commercial chemical.

Otherwise I would flood a page that is more general ("organosulfate") on a specific member of it's category.

Please let me know if this makes sense and you think it would be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrer D (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrer D (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense. I suggest you put in a line close to the top saying (in Wikipedia-reader-friendly manner) what you've just explained, with a link Organosulfate or perhaps , you get the idea. And resubmit the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hi Chiswick Chap, and thanks for creating Marieholm! Also now i've seen how this works i have joined the Afc project; so i can help out now and then. :) Benzband (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, just doing my bit, and all the best with your wikifying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Chiswick Chap, Thanks for Barnstar.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 14:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The least that you deserve. Great stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Aethiopians (DYK)

Hi, Thanks expanding this article. I don´t know if you saw my comment here? I´m tempted to edit the article myself, but I guess that would not be suitable, as I cleared it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra, that's nice of you. No, I hadn't seen it, but it's a lovely surprise too. Actually I had already said in the article (para 5), with citation, that the Fula(ni) idea came from Rennel via Morel, so there you are! Many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are happy about it! However, there are some links there (like to James Rennell, and Mungo Parks work), which perhaps could be included in the article? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'm sure it would be fine if you did it - "Be Bold" as Wikipedians are exhorted. "Lyckan står dem djärvom bi." Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sergio Grasso

(Lasagnolo (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)) Links are now inside the article, put language tag on links and done a better translation. Hope it will be ok now.[reply]

Ciao Lasagnolo, ho metto tanti "ref tags" i Sergio Grasso per te. Era un lavoro! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Lasagnolo (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)) Ciao Chiswick Chap, grazie per l'aiuto, ora è tutto ok !! (thanks a lot for your helping, now it seems like a professional article !!!)[reply]

Macroaxis decline today

Thank you for your quick review of the small piece on Macroaxis. Sorry for the trouble, and glad you put it through the process so speedily. Does it disappear for now? Also not sure if I've put this note in the right place, thanks for all you do. Best, KellieFlan (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]