This page 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.

Hi Sionk, This is Speedhist, Have been laid up for a while just starting writing again. I would like to revise my article on Joan Newton Cuneo, but I haven't been able to find your comments. Could you please direct me to them. Best, Speedhist (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some comments when I declined your draft article in 2013, but these will have been lost when the draft was successfully moved to Wikipedia's article space. However, if you have any questions I'll be happy to help. Sionk (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I was surprised to see that my article was now uploaded. I will add a few photos in a few days. Plan to do a few more bios of early women racers. Speedhist (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sionk -- I hope you can consider Talk:List of female architects#proposal for treatment of redlinks and removed items as a well-meaning try, that you might support in whole or part. I saw somewhere, not sure where, that there's an initiative started or starting soon to get a lot of development of women architects in Wikipedia. I'd like for new editors who add red-links or other info to the list-article, perhaps without much knowledge of Wikipedia rules, to be welcomed and to be treated nicely. There are in fact new editors arriving. E.g. brand-new editor User:Avabkeating who recently added Jane Goodman item recently, on her first day of editing at Wikipedia. My supporting that, and welcoming her at her Talk page and beginning to help develop a corresponding draft article, seems to be going well. Simply removing new items, on the other hand, would be pretty negative for brand-new editors. I hope you can see some benefit of being flexible and accommodating in a different way, at the list-article, for a while at least? I have the impression that you've managed the list-article well for a while, but hope some change is possible. I look forward to your participation at that proposal Talk section, and I'll also watch here. sincerely, --doncram 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the idea of being welcoming is a sound one, of course! I've replied on Talk:List of female architects and I support the idea of a sub-list (though not sure where that should be). Sionk (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought by adding secondary sources and clearing up insufficient inline citations as suggested it would correct the article but now I see your latest issue of being too close of a connection to the subject. How can I fix this? I feel the additions have made things worse. Help! ChaldaMaloff (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You were warned that writing an autobiography about yourself was not a good idea. It is extremely difficult to remain objective and write only about widely known facts. Generally information (in biographical article in particular) should be cited to published sources that are independent of the subject. In contrast to that, describing a book or paper and citing it to the book/paper itself is not good practice. Sionk (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sionk, I am a new editor, and the subject of this article. I am sorry that I have never edited a page before and admit that I have only a limited knowledge of the proper protocols and policies. You might consider this ironic given I am author of a book on etiquette.  :-) The major objectionable edits done previously were by someone I know using an ID which was my name. (A major no-no?) I have requested that person change the ID to remove confusion. I have also asked her to stop editing the page. I do not know the proper procedure, but would like to see the banner flag removed. Can you help me figure out the next step? Also, my nationality is listed as "German," and while I was born in Germany, I am a US citizen. Austinite1973 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I see the name of the other account has been changed. I've amended the nationality in the article to 'American', all things considered. I've also move the template from the top of the article, to the Talk page (the other person hasn't edited the article for over 7 months). If you want any further amendments to the article about yourself, it may be more appropriate to request them by leaving a message on the article's Talk page. Kind regards. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sionk, thank you! Austinite1973 (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Merrypinkwoman (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Re: Amanda Eliasch. She is an important donor with both the The Elephant Family and the The BFI. Why do you always say no? I checked with the BFI and with the others. If the other artists can mention their contributions why cannot she? If a socialite is a socialite, then in the old fashioned world of its real meaning of the world she is contributing to society at large. She appears to be doing this frequently. The links are correct. The other edits I make never have this criticism, and they have done far less than she has. What's the exact problem? The page is always attacked for no real reason.[2] check the costs of the charities and you will see she is quite some donor, that is just the surface. She contributed to Britweek in Los Angeles several times, supporting Pam Hogg too, that was not changed yet her page always is?Merrypinkwoman (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As you know from the history of this Amanda Eliasch article, there were multiple attempts to delete it because of its promotional nature (with suggestions that Eliasch was contributing herself). It was saved from deletion (largely by me and another experienced editor) on the basis it would be cleaned up.

If you want to describe her as an "important donor" to various charities (or BFI) you'll need to cite that claim to a reliable source (e.g. a news article about her donations). Citing that sort of thing to a list on a charity website with her name on it is not the right thing to do. Try and stick to adding widely established (and verifiable) facts about her. Sionk (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Merrypinkwoman (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Thank you for your help Sionk I appreciate that you have helped the page along with another prominent editor, but I think if you had read what I have read it would cement the worthiness of pursuits. Otherwise, we should remove the word "socialite" which means in its proper sense that the person does a lot for society. Anyway the links do not get taken down on other Wikapedia pages that I contribute to?. It is worth talking about. The BFI should be added in my view,

and The Elephant Family as she seems to have spent on record 100,000 pounds on helping the Elephants habitat and to have places to live in India. Surely more than other people?. The BFI on record she has given 100,000 pounds too? The others are smaller amounts. Please inform me so I can get the right links. Who checks old artists pages? As you saw others need doing? Because of the lack of records in the 1980's 1990's citations are poor? How much do you have to give in order to be a major donor, I think this is considerable? I shall look forward to hearing from you.Merrypinkwoman (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted much of the content of Alternatiba, Village of Alternatives. Moreover, I don't understand why you did delete the categories I did propose for this article.

Let have a look please on the French or on the Spanish version of such a page. If, since 2014 December, they have been allowed by the numerous French administrators who have visited and corrected minor defaults of this page, I don't understand why do their translation looks unauthorized bu English users?

Sorry for my rough English and thank you in advance for your replies! --- Alter005 ^{[ --> talk]} 09:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, your English is excellent! Thankyou for pointing out my error in removing the categories, a mistake on my part. I've added them back again.

Unfortunately this very long article was completely unsourced (I added a newspaper source I found online). The only part of the article I deleted was the very long list of future events. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to advertise events that haven't happened yet.

I suggest you add some news sources to the article, to help verify the facts and prove Alternatiba meets notability criteria for the English language Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply

the problem is that I don't have any English references

So would-it be possible to insert some of the French or Spanish references which are published on the French and Spanish WP pages?

Besides, there are already a lot of work which have been done for the future events, for instance in Paris or in other cities. So it would not be an advertisement but rather an information on what have been done, and an announcement of the future events. It's the reason why this information is going on staying on the French and Spanish WP.

Thus, why not on the English WP?

Would you be so kind to explain-me this unequality between English and other WP? --- Alter005 ^{[ --> talk]} 19:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-English language sources are absolutely fine, especially if they are in reliable sources, such as newspapers and news websites.

As for the long list of future events, well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for announcements. I don't know what rules are in place on the French and Spanish Wikipedias, so I can't comment on those. Sionk (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, Is the add of 17 references sufficient for removing the advert ahead of the article? Thanks for any reply --- Alter005 ^{[ --> talk]} 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I had something to do with the creation of this article. I did not. I created the page as a redirect to another article about another person: (from Kate Bateman to Kate Josephine Bateman). The redirect has since been made into an article about the auctioneer and antiques expert. But I had nothing to do with that. If you are trying to notify the creator of Kate Bateman about the article's nomination for deletion, you will have to notify someone else... Please don't notify me. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

I am sorry for removing the advert ahead of Alternatiba, Village of Alternatives. But I thought that six references would be enough. How much do we need? Anyway, I'll go on in copying and translating the remaining references of the French page. After this weekend, I would have more references for the event which is going to take place in Todmorden (England) tomorrow. Can I put a reference linked with this website.

I would need your kind help for another problem. For the French and Spanish pages, I did create 3 or 4 months ago 2 disambiguation pages in order to avoid the ambiguation involved by the two different use of the world Alternatiba (for the Basque party and for the Village of Alternatives). Similarly, I have just created an Alternatiba (disambiguation) page in the English WP. But I am not very eased to use the English tools, even if they look similar to the French ones.

So would you be so kind to watch this page, maybe for correcting the errors I have done? Or just if you have not time enough for informing me of what I could have to do? Whatever you could do, thank you again for your collaboration in building this page. --- Alter005 ^{[ --> talk]} 17:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When a lot of work has been done for a cultural event which is already programmed, is-it possible to announce it on WP? Yes, if it is an official event, such as a programmed opera, a programmed dance exhibition, or an event included in a TV broadcasting. For instance, by searching in the EN WP, I have found several announcements of events programmed in 2015 or 2017:

• in the Sarasota Opera page written in December 2014, we can read details concerning the 'Verdi cycle': The only operas which remain to be presented are Don Carlos, in the original, 5-act, Paris version in French, which is planned for 2015, while La battaglia di Legnano and Aida are planned for 2016 to complete the Verdi Cycle, a feat which distinguishes Sarasota Opera as the only company in the world to have performed every note which the composer wrote.

• in the Love (TV series), we can read " Love is an upcoming American comedy television series set to premiere in 2016. The show is created by Judd Apatow and Lesley Arfin and stars Gillian Jacobs and Paul Rust."

• In the The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) page, we can find out in the 'other productions' that " In season 2014/2015 there will be 24 performances in total, of which 8 will be in capital Tallinn at Nordea Concert Hall (premiered there on 30 October 2014). In season 2015/2016 there are plans to give 16 performances."

• In the List of programs broadcast by Syfy, we can read a list of premieres forecasted in the Upcoming programs such as "Hunters (premieres 2016)" or Killjoys[6] (Premieres June 19, 2015) and Dark Matter (Premieres June 12, 2015).

So, it is not fair to consider that informing about the work for programmed alternative events would be an advertisement, while considering future official events as allowed to be advertised in WP! Considering this practice used in the EN WP for cultural events, I consider that I am allowed to publish on the EN WP future programmed events since they are gathering a lot of work even if they are not yet existing right now.

Considering these arguments, do you still disagree with me ?--- Alter005 ^{[ --> talk]} 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sionk,

Reading your profile, your contributions to wikipedia is appreciated and respected. We cited some content you removed previously which was re-added back because of incoming links tied to the article. You then added a AFD above the article after the removed was added back. This article has been referenced by different entities over the past 4 years and previously approved by admins. The article is on its way to perfection, and to rectify the cited issue with the sources referenced and the context formatting, the removed data has to be present. Some references to past events under notability guidelines on the linked websites have been removed due to server changes and need to be retrieved through archived outlets, this can take time. Wikipedia makes a provision for this scenario and your efforts, patience and understanding is appreciated. Thanks. Mnanonymous (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

MNY

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "because of incoming links tied to the article". If these are internal Wikipedia links, well, there were none in the removed lists.

If you wish to improve the article by adding news, magazine or book coverage about Visual Collaborative then you will have at least 7 days to do so, while the AfD is running its course. I couldn't see any online, which is why I nominated it for deletion discussion. Offline/'dead tree' sources are fine if you know of them, but they need to be fully described. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sionk, thanks for your quick response. I understand the need for us to keep the integrity of the articles in check. I went ahead to remove the excess data as your suggested in your previous note and condensed the data into a readable table. Some of the sources you would have found online sadly are no longer available. Some of the reputable grassroots media outlets collapsed during the recession and so did their print or digital platforms, some not so fortunate to bounce back. Will try to locate the right kind print support you mention for the article. Thanks for your feedback, patience and support in the ongoing discussions to keep our article online.Mnanonymous (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all shocked that you don't have a clue who Cornbread is yet are editing a page about graffiti or that you don't know that graffiti would not exist the way it does for all of you to find so "kewel" if it weren't for Philadelphia. Take care now. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded the Civility Barnstar for your forbearance and civility in the discussions on the Graffiti talk page. Thnidu (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks!! I didn't do much. I think an Uncivility badge would be a better option, for the other guy ;) Sionk (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At the Portobello House AFD, I replied with a suggestion that the 10 Euro volume be purchased. I hope you are not offended or too abruptly dismissive; if you don't think that would be productive i'd be interested in your explaining. FYI, not long ago, I did myself recently purchase a guidebook to the Isle of Man, during a long-running AFD which paused for me to receive it, because it seemed highly relevant to establishing the notability of a place article where there was an impasse. In that case I was undecided or against keeping the article, i don't remember. The other party was a local expert in many ways but without much Wikipedia experience. I bought the book fairly cheaply to be sent to me, and fount the book contradicted the pro-Keep arguments, and I said so. And the AFD was concluded with Delete decision. The approach didn't solve the more general issue for many related articles, and there remains an impasse between that editor and me. So finding out the "truth" by paying for a source didn't solve everything. Here i am still serious with my side of the offer/challenge to pay, but with it set up differently (to put the resource in the hands of the local expert), hoping maybe it could do some good. Of course this is all too much for one article, saving the article or not is not very important really we all agree... you me and the author agree about that....but still a decision needs to be made. doncram 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The publication you referred to is in Cardiff Central Library, which unfortunately is closed for 'refurbishment' until 8 June. However, the possibility of Portobello House being mentioned in it is fairly remote, so I think the publication is a red herring in the AfD argument. No-one would seriously argue that every vaguely related offline publication needs to be consulted before an article is deleted.

I appreciate that you've written a substantial number of articles about US buildings which have been recognised on various heritage registers. Heritage registers (or listed building status in the UK) are a sound indication of some sort of notability. Portobello House isn't listed.

I've searched the British Newspaper Archive and the only mention I can find is of the "Portobello Inn" which was listed in variosu publications circa 1890 because the owner had been declared bankrupt. Apart from that I've drawn a blank. Sionk (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On 12 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Hotel, Cardiff, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in June 1910, the Royal Hotel, Cardiff hosted a fundraising banquet for Captain Robert Falcon Scott two days before his ship departed for Antarctica? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Hotel, Cardiff. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

I'm trying to improve this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeremy_Taylor_%28dreamworker%29 which you said it was "filled with embedded URLS". I'm not sure what form things are supposed to be in. Can you clarify for me? Thanks.

Lcuff (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

By "embedded urls" I mean the website homepage links you have added for every organisation he has been associated with. These do not help the article, they simply advertise the various websites. You need to find some secondary news/book sources about Taylor to make the article meaningful. Sionk (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sionk,

Thank you for your explanation of embedded URLS, but I confess I remain confused. You say of the embedded URLs "these do not help the article, they simply advertise the various websites" But in fact they document that what is being said is true. Each page I gave is a link to the site where it documents that Taylor is part of the staff, or has the association stated in the Wikipedia article. What you've said is very confusing. The guidelines for articles talk endlessly about needing to provide sources and references for what is said. The pages I give provide the proof of those associations. Are you saying I should remove these URLs, or have them in some other form or in some other part of the page?

Lcuff (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think you should remove these links. I've clicked on several and none mention Taylor, they are simply homepages for organisations' websites. They serve no purpose and (if the article ever reaches main article space) are likely to get removed.

Sources are, of course, important for verification of the facts, but are worth little unless you can demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia in the first place. If you want to improve the article you'll need to follow the advice we've left for you, and dig up some sources about Taylor that are reliable (e.g. journalistic, academic) and independent of him. Sionk (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It took me 24 minutes to convert the bare URLs in this article to full references. Could I suggest that the next time you come across this problem, you actually do the work of fixing the problem, instead of simply tagging it and leaving it for another editor to do? BMK (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the purpose of clean-up templates, isn't it? There are some people that seem to like converting bare urls. I had more urgent things to do. If you don't like doing that sort of thing, why didn't you leave it for someone else? Sionk (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon Sionk! I was just a bit confused why you were moving the awards section on Shanti Wintergate under the Play Date heading, when one of the awards was for a book published five years before the band was founded. Earflaps (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The award was in 2014 to Play Date, as far as I can see from the source. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sion K

This is Richard Murphy Architects here - we are trying to correct some incorrect info on the wikipedia page but it keeps being undone - would you be able to just let us know which guidelines you would like us to adhere to when making changes rather than undoing the factually correct info and replacing it with the old incorrect info?

Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.37.60.171 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir

You have not advised what was the reason to decline the draft I have submitted.

Having received your last reminder about the draft, I am curious to find out what was it you were expecting to be changed, which i am prepared to do.

Many thanks!

Bob.nw8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob.nw8 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There will have been a message on the draft itself, explaining the problem(s) to you. Unfortunately because the draft has not been edited for more than 6 months, it looks like it has been deleted. Therefore I can no longer give you an explanation.

If you want your draft restored so you can continue working on it, maybe you need to speak to the editor who deleted it, RHaworth. Sionk (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Skyscraper architects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ELEKHH^T 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on my Talk page. Deb (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Charles does speak Welsh quite well, actually - not like Edward VIII, who learned a few words of Welsh for his investiture in 1911. I don't suppose William's command of the language is great - though of course he did live in Anglesey for some time and must have had plenty of opportunity to practise. Oh yes, undoubtedly some people wouldn't want this category, and I would have preferred to keep the "Welsh-speaking people" category (which Charles had been in for years), but you know the history of that. Deb (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture sponsored by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015 The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Architecture to participate. As it stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in architecture. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One-name study, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoke. 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) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

... here. Actually, I just realize that Anna already wrote that at User:Anna Frodesiak/Pink sandbox#Image requirements. — Sebastian 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see reasons for deletion of this page. The page is about painter who is well-known in Serbia, and in Montenegro too. There are sources that can say the same. I finde it's fault. Am I able to get some another explanation?--Djolecarkralj (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for you another editor disagrees with me. Actually I can see at least one 2015 news article, so maybe Francisković is getting more attention at last. Sionk (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are three of them. Also, there are interviews that can be seen via YouTube (there are no just news articles in media world), but which we cannot use here as sources. --Djolecarkralj (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just uploaded new image which shows Francisković on title page of biggest newspaper in Montenegro, Vijesti. It's not possible to be there, and in the same time not to be important in some way! --Djolecarkralj (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

On 25 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Georgie Wolton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Georgie Wolton designed the first house in the UK to use CorTen steel as the primary structure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Georgie Wolton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On 27 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beatriz del Cueto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that conservation architect Beatriz del Cueto restored Puerto Rico's oldest lighthouse, Cape San Juan Light (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beatriz del Cueto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On 4 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Patty Hopkins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the BBC was accused of ignoring women architects when Patty Hopkins was removed from a photograph of The Brits Who Built the Modern World? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Patty Hopkins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am interested in adding more information to Katharine Cotheal Budd. I did my undergraduate thesis on KCB in 1983 :) .... I am a relative of hers (KCB's niece was my grandmother). Is there a 'best way' to add information? Thank you, Victoria Budd Opperman Victoria budd opperman (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine you will know what published sources are available about her. Information is welcome as long as it has been published (in theory that will allow other readers to verifiy the information if they can find a copy of the source). Personal knowledge, or genealogical research isn't welcome on Wikipedia (it's what we call 'original research'), so avoid the temptation to add family stories or personal anecdotes. I expect if you've written an academic thesis you'll be well aware of what information is required to identify and cite a source. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I note you have a dded a refimprove tag to Southsound Radio. I recently nominated this for deletion because of the lack of sources to show it meets the notability requirements. Since the vote was to keep I have added everything I can find. If you could give any further help that would be great.— Rod ^talk 13:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I was actually about the add a 'notability' template, but noticed it had been recently "Kept" at AfD so decided against it for the time being. If I had seen the AfD discussion I would have 'voted' "Delete". However, I don't have an axe to grind against this radio station. Maybe if someone feels strongly they can re-nominate after a few months. Sionk (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind against radio stations either (or anything else), I'm just working my way though the cleanup list for wikiproject Bristol and this (and several others) are included.— Rod ^talk 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Ellis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Poldark. 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) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Coffee 1, Sionk!

Wikipedia editor Gorthian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

You might want to see if you can set up some links to this article. Currently, the only links are from Template:Economy and industry of Cardiff.

To reply, leave a comment on Gorthian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Yep, give me a chance. I only created the article a few minutes ago. Sionk (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Simple question, which I would prefer you to answer, rather than ignore, which appears to be your preference. Why is the fact that Telford was a civil engineer in itself adequate justification for denying him to be a structural engineer ? The two categories don't seem mutually exclusive to me; what is the wrinkle I am failing to grasp? Rjccumbria (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd turn the question back on you. If civil and structural engineering is the same thing, why do we have separate professions (and Wikipedia categories). The intro to the Thomas Telford article clearly says he was a civil engineer, as does the infobox. If you have evidence he was described as a structural engineer, then by all means add it. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to be rude, but I think you are making (and reverting) edits despite being somewhat out of your depth here. Doubtless this is in good faith, but young engineers used have it dinned in to them (and I hope they still do) that doing things 'out of their depth' should be a no-no (it can kill - and has killed - people), so it takes an effort for me to be as relaxed about it as Wikietiquette requires. It is not my position that civil engineering and structural engineering are the same thing, but that they are not mutually exclusive, in much the same way that 'surgeon' and 'brain surgeon' are not mutually exclusive. A brain surgeon is a surgeon who is recognised to be competent in brain surgery - a structural engineer (as I understand the distinction) is a civil engineer who is suitably qualified and experienced in the design of structures: or at least some sub-set of them ; the go-to chaps for box-girder bridges would probably decline to tender for the design of earth gravity dams. If you find an eminent engineer described as a 'structural engineer' that does not entitle you to conclude that he cannot have been a bridge designer. If you find him described as a 'civil engineer', that does not entitle you to conclude that he does not fall within the category 'structural engineer'

If you are inclined to argue against the above, you might care to look at the Wikiarticle on civil engineering (which perhaps you might have been wise to do before making your edit) and note its lede

Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings.^[1][2][3] Civil engineering is the second-oldest engineering discipline after military engineering,^[4] and it is defined to distinguish non-military engineering from military engineering.^[5] It is traditionally broken into several sub-disciplines including architectural engineering, environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, control engineering, structural engineering, earthquake engineering, transportation engineering, forensic engineering, municipal or urban engineering, water resources engineering, materials engineering, wastewater engineering, offshore engineering, facade engineering, quantity surveying, coastal engineering,^[4] construction surveying, and construction engineering.^[6] Civil engineering takes place in the public sector from municipal through to national governments, and in the private sector from individual homeowners through to international companies.

Telford is generally accepted to have been a civil engineer and furthermore one suitably qualified and experienced in the design of structures: one of the more notable of these can be seen in the background of the portrait used in the Wikiarticle. Rjccumbria (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You really need to spare the patronising lectures, or people will choose to simply ignore you. Of course civil engineers have a strong (and essential) knowledge of structures, there's no denying it, or they would never be able to design infrastructure. But 'structural engineer' is a specialism as far as I know of anything I've read or anyone I've met (regardless of what someone has chosen to write on Wikipedia). If you agree that "Telford is generally accepted to have been a civil engineer" then that is how he should be categorised. After all, he was the "godather of civil engineering" and President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you had already chosen to simply ignore me and carry out a prompt revert without answering a perfectly reasonable question, (which piece of sub-optimum manners was what brought me onto your talk page to repeat the question) so you are not in the best of positions to instruct me how best to carry forward the discussion.

There is indeed a strong and cogent argument for his categorisation as a civil engineer, but more careful reading of what I have written will not show me to have said anything to the contrary. The point at issue is (or should be) whether the work he was responsible for means that he also fits the category of 'structural engineer' . As noted above, he certainly was competent to design and evaluate structures, which, on the 'duck test' some (including myself) would take to make him a paid-up structural engineer in good standing, whatever other specialisms he might have had within his 'civil engineering' portfolio. Your edit rests upon a belief/argument that since he was a 'civil engineer' he cannot have been a 'structural engineer' (as far as I understand your argument because you define a 'structural engineer' as someone only competent to design and evaluate structures). You have yet to give any references to support a view that the category 'structural engineer' is defined (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) not by competence in the design of structures, but by incompetence in all other aspects of civil engineering. It would be an excellent step forward in this discussion if you would do so; that would go some way to answering the question I initially posed Rjccumbria (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no intention of setting out to prove someone wasn't something, or that someone was incompetent. The onus would be on you to demonstrate he was defined as a structural engineer. Nowhere in the article does it say he was known as a structural engineer. If you're saying "he knew about structures so he was a structural engineer", that seems to be WP:OR. Civil engineers are extremely knowledgeable about structures, but they are defined as civil engineers. Sionk (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not 'what he was defined as', but what wikicategories he can legitimately be assigned to, for those who find such things useful.

But there are those that would argue that civil enginers who are markedly proficient in some specialised aspect of civil engineering are not exclusively defined by 'civil engineer'. Non-exclusivity would appear to be the sense of the current WP entries for civil engineering (and indeed of that for structural engineer). It does not seem to me to be OR to take the wikicategories 'civil engineer' and 'structural engineer' to be aligned with the corresponding WP entries: if that is done, Telford clearly qualifies for the wikicategory 'structural engineer'. If you belive that the wikicategories 'civil engineer' and 'structural engineer' are mutually exclusive, then I suggest you edit the relevant WP entries to support that proposition, with adequate referencing on the point. Once that is done and accepted, your argument will be much sounder. Until it is, it would seem to me that the view that an engineer notable for (amongst other things) the structures he designed does not fall within the wikicategory 'structural engineer' if he was described as a 'civil engineer' does not rest on anything in Wikipedia, and therefore is at some risk of being thought WP:OR. Rjccumbria (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:St Johns Church Dowlais - geograph.org.uk - 2788959.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sionk. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Principality Stadium as a technical deletion under CSD G6. That criterion did not apply because G6 is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and this move would be decidedly controversial. I suggest you discuss this at Talk:Millennium Stadium#Stadium renaming. larryv (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, I have made a request to move/merge Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre ('The Tube'). Would you like to add your thoughts to the Talk Page. SethWhales ^talk 16:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was thinking about AFD-ing the John Dixon page, on the basis that it is pretty borderline as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES says "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated".

The complication is obviously that the subject was involved at a high level in Plaid Cymru. My feeling on balance is that this is still pretty weak - as the guidelines seem to suggest that only the leaders of political parties should be preserved. I note that not all previous chairs of PC have wikipedia pages.

I certainly see that the election rigmarole he was involved in deserves a mention on National_Assembly_for_Wales and possibly referencing on Plaid Cymru, but I don't see references showing that the subject has done enough to be independently notable. I appreciate that others may disagree - there are a few media mentions of his decision to leave the party, but most of these seem to be referencing his blog as a source, which I also feel has far too prominent a part of this page and smacks of a COI and/or vanity reference.

Anyhow, I noticed from the history that you'd been toying with whether the page was notable, so I thought I'd just leave a note here before jumping in with a AfD. Regards. JMWt (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said in one of my edit history comments, I'd probably go 'weak keep' at an AfD (hence I removed my own 'notability' template). I can imagine opinion will be divided, however. Sionk (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as a courtesy (you edited it out last year) thought I'd tell you I've reinstated Islam as Jason Mohammad's religion, with citation. Not sure why it matters, but added category as well. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up that one. I normally check for that. Didn't think there'd be quite so many missing Grade I listed buildings... Ah well, gives people something to work on. Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Easily missed and easily solved! It's good to be getting a list of redlinks like this - we can see the scope of the challenge. Sionk (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Long term even beyond the contest this is a very valuable thing to do anyway I think. If there are future contests then the resource is there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Check out this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just flicked the autopatrolled flag for you. its seems a waste of time checking up on your content creation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker but Draughtsman redirects to Drafter, which is purely technical, no word about visual arts there. So either the name of the Category or the main article for this category is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

True, it's hardly 'Design' either, so you're probably right. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please check Prvoslav Vujcic, an article created by Tempo21. The same person created deleted article about Urban Book Circle and Djuradj Vujcic (a son of Prvoslav Vujcic). For me, it's hard to believe that somebody can publish 12 books in 2 years, by the same publisher - the (UBC Press). Also, Prvoslav Vujcic can't be found in their online catalogue. Many references are in Serbian, from Serbian press. For example: "Vujcic is a member of... the US-based International Association of Writers. In 2007, the International Association of Writers named him a Poetry Ambassador of the United States." The references are two texts from Serbian press. I couldn't find the International Association of Writers on the Internet. --N Jordan (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but the article about his son was worse so I decided to tackle that first. Tempo21 edits solely about the Vujcics and the Urban Book Circle, which makes it look like there's a strong connection. Sionk (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken, good sir, as I do not edit solely about the Vujcics. Please help yourself to a look at my list of hundreds of created articles. Again, I categorically deny any COI as I am not that person. I don't appreciate the harassment. Thanks. – Tempo21 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On 26 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Thomas (architect), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Welsh architect Thomas Thomas made sure he preached one of the very first sermons in every chapel he built? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Thomas (architect). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed some new articles from you and Tony Holkham of late. Are you not happy to have them listed as part of the Dragon editathon? The idea was to keep it open for submissions even before it begins, but if you're not happy with that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

To editor Dr. Blofeld: Sorry, I think I must be missing something? Just doing what I do. Please advise. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed some new articles being posted at WP:Wales page but not added to the list on the Dragon page at the bottom. Some editors have already begun creating content for it, see the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. Roald Dahl bibliography is current a featured list candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought the Awaken the Dragon thing wasn't starting till April. As far as I remember, the only article I've written recently which was on the "Missing articles" page was Penarth Dock, which I'd added to the list myself anyway. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The "contest" will be held in April yup, but some people are busy and n might rather get it done now while they can so anybody is free to contribute what they want in the time being. Obviously the main editathon/contest is in April and entries done before hand wouldn't count for points in the contest, but if anybody feels like contributing anything before then I think we should embrace that and include them to count towards it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazed Penarth Dock was missing, good job! I got Barry Docks up to GA status a while back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to source an article about Penarth Dock for a long time. It wasn't until the 150th anniversary last year that a decent timeline became available. After writing the Baroness Windsor article, I needed to create an article about the Dock too ;) Sionk (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Harriet Windsor-Clive, 13th Baroness Windsor 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! SusunW (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I think a full list of missing listed building articles would be good. Perhaps Grade I and II* for the hotlist and the Grade II in the general missing list? I think it would make sense to have them listed altogether though. I should have the core list mostly finished in the next few days after which I'll help you with the missing list which I think really needs to list a lot more and for a broader range of topics. Takes time though doesn't it! The good thing though is that these lists will be in place for future contests and can gradually evolve.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. From my point of view it will probably take less time than the 'Missing photographs' hotlist, which involves searching geograph.org.uk and Wikimedia for suitable pictures, before adding the photo request(s) to the article Talk page. On the other hand a missing article is just, erm, missing. Sionk (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How many points do you think would be reasonable for taking a photograph of something on the photograph hotlist. 20 points? Obviously only one photograph of a given monument will be eligible for points, otherwise people willing be winning the contest for photographing one memorial 100 times haha! We could have a shortlist of ones we badly want even within the hotlist, the level I missing ones which could be worth like 50 points or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of points inflation going on :) Personally I would agree with maybe 50 points for a high priority subject and 30 points for anything else on the hotlist. After all we are asking people to travel, have their own equipment and a reasonable level of photography skill. On top of that we're expecting people to sign away their rights to their decent photos. I suspect that many of the remaining missing photos are of the places that are least accessible. Obviously we need to aim to give these top points to good quality photos and this can be made clear in the instructions. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On 10 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harriet Windsor-Clive, 13th Baroness Windsor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the mid-1850s Harriet Windsor-Clive, 13th Baroness Windsor, paid for the construction of the same church twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harriet Windsor-Clive, 13th Baroness Windsor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of the Future, Cardiff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redrow. 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) 11:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

HI Sionk - thanks for your message on my recent edit. Apologies for not adhering to any wikiquette re. edit summary. I profess to being a relative noob. I was asked to make this change as I work in the same organisation as Rae. My impression is that the intention was to remove vexatious commentary from, or about former employees. If I remake the changes and add an Edit Summary as you suggested, would this be sufficient? Can you advise? Thanks and regards Steevill (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Being vexed isn't really a strong reason to remove a Wikipedia article. In fact it's rather ironic if Mr Rae is vexed that the national news (The Guardian and the Sunday Times) reported him altering an article on his newspaper, so sends someone to alter a Wikipedia article. Thank you for explaining your intentions, but considering your conflict of interest it may be better to request any major edits on the article's Talk page. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice work on these! I know its a slog finding buildings at British Listed Buildings and adding the links. Much appreciated. Robevans123 (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's taking forever, but thanks for the appreciation. The locations are generally the civil parish rather than the actual village location, which leads to another level of head scratching :) Sionk (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you or a page stalker add 15 more articles for architecture to the Core list? Architecture of Cardiff definitely a core article. for a start!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added a couple of Grade I's already, but there are so many Grade II* buildings without articles I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe I'll add some that I think are 'major', or important buildings in larger settlements. Sionk (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

List is virtually done now, just have another 37 history entries to round it to 250. I've rounded off the others. We just need 13 architecture articles. I'll find something don't worry. In next ten days a fair amount of work still needed on drawing up the missing articles!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "there are so many Grade II* buildings" full stop. I imagine existing articles take priority on the core article list, particularly for Grade II*. Therefore I'd have even less idea which articles were considered 'core'. Sionk (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done a pretty decent job on the overall core list though haven't I? It can still be modified and improved over time but for the initial contest I've got the basics down?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you've done a remarkable job!! Sionk (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think if the photo is poor quality then they should get no more than 10 points for it, even if top of most wanted list. 25 points for a poor quality photo seems way too high, nearly worth a quarter of a GA. I have my doubts even about 50 points for a decent core photograph. 10 photos from one area of different buildings 500 points, worth 5 GAs and 50 new articles? Doesn't seem right to me. I don't think people should be able to win the contest by just taking photographs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually going on your own suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. I think the discussion should happen there. Equally I'd say that 100/75 bonus points for "tackling" a Level 1/Level 2 article seems unusually generous, particularly in comparison with only 10 points for creating an article from scratch. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you might be right. The idea though was that people think twice about creating lots of lesser notable ones in bulk and see the value of contributing to a core article. Perhaps 50 and 40 would be better I don't know. But then it's only worth two basic article expansions of any article. I think we really need to place highest value on tackling the more important articles which have been stale for a long time. My worry about 50 for a photograph though is that people could take ten photographs in under an hour and it be worth five Good articles, which is unfair as potentially a lot of contestants won't live in Wales.. I agree on higher points for the highest demand ones though, but I think something more like 30 points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we pick the 10 most valuable photographs and award 50 points for those then and more like 20 points for others?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You were right on the Core points being too high. It occurred to me last night that you could do ten quick 3 kb expansions of a level 1 core article and get 1000 points! I've lowered it to 50 and 40, that seems more reasonable now I think. I'm going to keep the core of the core GA bonus section very high though as a lot of those articles listed there are really ones we badly want to see improved and promoted. Anybody who tackles those should quite rightly be given a lot of points!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Realized that you only meant 50 points for the Grade I listed ones. There's not many of those so 50 it is. I thought it included tthe Grade II* ones as well, I was a bit worried that people would take a few dozen of those and win the contest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

architecture of Cardiff

Thank you for quality articles such as Architecture of Cardiff and Harriet Windsor-Clive, 13th Baroness Windsor, for reviewing articles for creation, for being helpful and patient with newcomers, and for the simple "add useful information, while deleting the bad", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hullo Sionk

I have spent 36 years researching the life and productions of Peter Monamy. I have struggled intensively to correct the guesswork and multiple inaccuracies of virtually all previous accounts of his works. I am at least as well educated as anyone else. It was extremely depressing to discover the alterations you have made to the biography in Wikipedia. I would be happy to discuss these with you, if you could entertain such a possibility.

Yours sincerely,

Carlosfarangi (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds very much like a great deal of original research (particularly based on the original documents listed in the references), which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Unless of course maybe you've published your(?) findings elsewhere (a book, a website etc) and can cite them directly. The extensive quotes in particular need to be accompanied by an inline citation (I've added a couple for you). Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reports and summarises information that has been readily published elsewhere, not a repository for fresh findings/suppositions. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Prior to 1980 almost all the published statements about Monamy consisted of guesswork, supposition and prejudice, unsupported by any research at all. Almost all the statements in the Wikipedia article have been preceded by dedicated original research conducted since 1980 and published in two exhibition catalogues, a number of articles, and on the substantial Monamy website. See here: http://www.cichw1.net/pmindex.html The “preamble” you have removed is recorded here: http://www.cichw1.net/pmwalpanecdote.html British art history has been grotesquely and mendaciously distorted over the centuries since 1750 by self-regarding arbiters of taste. The Courtaulds, dedicated Huguenot refugees, must be turning in their graves. Roy Strong, in The Spirit of Britain, a narrative history of the arts, 1999, makes this supremely fatuous assertion: "The landscape looms large, and yet ironically England's economic greatness was owed to the sea, to maritime endeavour, but there is no great literature of the sea, nor great school of marine painters." See here [scroll down]: http://www.cichw1.net/pmabds7.html I will attempt to introduce further citations in the Wikipedia article. The idea that an encyclopedia should not contain corrective original research, replacing preceding universal and widespread inaccuracy, seems to me ridiculous. I realise this original research is required to be published in hard copy. This is simply a matter of finance.

Carlosfarangi (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw your changes to this page. A minor point: the citation style, using ((sfn)) relies on the |author= or |last= parameter in the ((citation)) template to generate a link from the footnote to the source. By blanking the |author= values you broke these links. The effect for me, because I use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to highlight problems, is:

I was being lazy, using the |author= field when I should have used |ref=((harvid)). Still, you should be aware of the potential impact of a change like this. I recommend installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an overly complex inline citation style. Sorry, I didn't notice I'd broken anything. Sionk (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe over complex for this article. It works well when the article is mostly citing books, and is citing different pages in one book, e.g. Philip Jaffe. I find it takes little effort and gets the citation clutter out of the edit text. The type of sources I usually use tend to follow this style too. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for keeping an eye on the page above. I created it and was a member of group for four years, since I left I've not been able to hyper-manage it like I did before, and others have taken my place - not particularly doing a great job, as I see. They love to promote themselves; Wikipedia is certainly not the place to do that. I'll see if I can get any of the newer information that was deleted properly sourced, as the information is currently a little out of date. Thanks again. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos - love the tiles in the old library, and just noticed the cenotaph at Penarth. Just used it in User:Robevans123/sandbox/War Memorials in Wales - much better than the old geograph image I had. Diolch. Robevans123 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Coool :) Nice to see them being used. If you can't find a suitable alternative, I took a photo of the War Memorial (WWI/II) in Usk this month. Sionk (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. At the moment I'm concentrating on war memorials that are listed or show up on searches on the different welsh archaeological trusts, but definitely think there is scope for lists of memorials by principal area later. Still working through my list by principal area (Ceredigion at the moment...) so haven't looked at Monmouthshire yet, but there appears to be a Boer War memorial (which is Grade II listed) as well as the WWI/II memorial. There seems to be one photo of the WWI/II one on commons but it's always good to have a choice! Here's a link to the Boer War one. Next time you're in Usk...?! Robevans123 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This page 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.