User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Jamesparticular (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anthony DiMoro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm curious about your reasoning for declining the article ANTHONY DIMORO. You note the need for more credibility and I recently added his page on Forbes where he writes. This page includes his work on Forbes where he covers sports and social media. this ties directly into the subject.

I am just confused because I feel this new addition met both the golden rule and the other page you referenced.

Please let me know how this latest addition doesn't meet the standards you eluded to

Thank you in advance for your time

Jamesparticular (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You provided references to his own work, not evidence of notability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct! Codice1000.en (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A pretty common thing on en.wikipedia if you ask me! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amy Hughes. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fire Emblem Fates. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ludovic Le Moan

added links pointing to

IoT

Ophryotrocha craigsmithi

added links pointing to Branchia and Koster

Karlodinium antarcticum

added a link pointing to Cell

Ophryotrocha eutrophila

added a link pointing to Koster

Ophryotrocha scutellus

added a link pointing to Koster

Takayama tuberculata

added a link pointing to Cell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN, you have reviewed my draft article about

Hello there! Unfortunately none of those references appear to be reliable, i.e. they show no sign of having an editorial process behing them. It is starting to appear as though you're trying to push this particular term. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kia. Since you had some involvement with the Kia redirect (the move discussion), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You recently reviewed my Yassin Hall page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yassin_Hall) and I wanted to see if you could help me get it approved.

Will any of these sources help?http://www.busbyway.com/2015/07/20/author-of-jo... http://stjohnsource.com/content/news/local-news... http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-ne... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/12411789.Y... http://completeworldnews.com/2015/07/yassin-hal... http://www.humanmade.net/books/journey-untold http://hosts.blogtalkradio.com/intheauthorscorn... http://caribbeanemagazine.blogspot.com/2013/09/... http://www.ectechnano.com/journey-untold-my-mot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friersow (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not found, not found, no, no, no, not found, no article selected but page is not reliable, not found. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friersow (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, it is the actual references that are the problem, not the citations, correct? Friersow (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Friersow

The sources are not good. See

WP:IRS. FoCuSandLeArN (talk

) 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to inquire why you believe my article on Lori St John is a blatantly non-notable subject? It is my understanding that she meets all the requirements? Thank you for your assistance. Galaxygirl0505 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

She does not. See

WP:PROF for the criteria she doesn't meet. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk

) 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have recently been declined by you because the person I am writing about isn't notable enough. Can you explain or help me in getting this page accepted? In the beginning I had an option to write about myself or someone notable, which I chose the notable option, maybe I should have chosen writing about myself, although its not me. The person I am writing about is the lead singer for a number 1 chart act, managing successful top 10 bands and a patented inventor. I'm a little confused. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconic Sound (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The references provided seem to indicate The Urban Cookie Collective's notability, not the lead singer's. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the reference to the urban cookie chart and only internally hyperlinked to their page. I hope that will be ok.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconic Sound (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Duch0404 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GrapeSEED (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Thank you for your suggestion to add citations! I've read the notability and golden rule pages (before I drafted this article and many times after), but I'm still not sure if I am completely understanding what I need to do to get the article accepted. Regarding the GrapeSEED page, if I add quotes from the theorists mentioned to explain their theories (which were used as a basis for the program), and cite them in the references section, is that what you and other reviewers are looking for? Thank you for your patience and help! --Duch0404

Duch0404 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello there. No, the theories and the program are two different things. No matter how many references you provide about language acquisition theory, you're still not providing evidence GrapeSEED is notable. I haven't found extensive coverage about GrapeSEED in independent and reliable sources, but if you have, please provide these. BEst, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You added a comment - Comment: There's quite a bit of local and not so local coverage about this, but it appears to be a run-of-the-mill business. Is there anything missing that I need to add or is this page not accepted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca2014 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is still awaiting reviewal. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.73.236 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I have since updated this page

Thanks! Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but he's simply non-notable for Wikipedia. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your review. We have seen a problem about the url of the article

I'm doing civil service at Brugherio's library. At our library we contribute to the

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)

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)

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

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, (Personal attack removed) 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, (Personal attack removed) 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. (Personal attack removed), 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)

The

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)

See

WP:IS. FoCuS contribs; talk to me!

01:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Astyanax microschemos

added links pointing to Scale and Caudal

Eumunida chani

added a link pointing to Branchia

Paraulax queulensis

added a link pointing to Fovea

Paraulax ronquisti

added a link pointing to Tarsus

Uroptychus singularis

added a link pointing to Flex

Villa Fiorita, Brugherio

added a link pointing to Mother earth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources for the blog https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/mrs-bouverie-and-mrs-crewe-two-whig-hostesses-from-the-18th-century/ are given as www.historyofparliamentonline.org; The Gentleman’s Magazine, July-December, 1831, volume CI; Richard Brinsley Sheridan: A Life by Linda Kelly

MaxMLang (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My concern is this might be a copyright violation. Please reword those parts which closely resemble the original text. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, is a list of new references added to Roland Bergmann page sufficient now? Regards, WikiSilv (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)WikiSilv

I'm afraid not. Please see

reliable sources, such as newspapers or books, are considered good sources. FoCuS contribs; talk to me!

18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I have none, which you (maybe) will consider as RS... and if such article exists, than it will be somewhere hidden and written in German, and if evidence of being on music scene for 30 year is not enough for english Wiki than just remove the page... As far as I know, an interview is not RS, and I found many Wiki pages, where interviews were the only source of information, considered as being independent RS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSilv (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your comment, how can you write that this, is one source?

Reeder, David (January 1, 2015). "8 Bells and Medford’s challenge to his countrymen". RECOIL.

Webb, Brandon; Doherty, Glen (15 September 2010). 21st Century Sniper: The Complete Guide. New York: Skyhorse Publishing Inc. p. 216–217.

Webb, Brandon - well know writer, in this field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Webb_(author) Covert, Pat - American Handgunner - one of the most respected US writers and magazines in the field MESSER MAGAZIN, K-ISOM, Kalibar - same...respected EU writers and magazines in the field....Eytankey (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said that I performed my own search and found one source. I have since found a few more print sources, but I don't regard them as extensive either. Let's see what other reviewers have to say. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have the original magazines (hard copy) I can send it to you (PDF). Eytankey (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize you. But who are you to forbid I say approach of elimination of the article Gala Montes?, I'm giving my point of view, and it is not "fanaticism", stop judging. The fact that edit articles on soap operas do not prevent me to have a say.--