User talk:Dcshank

My Archived talk

My proposal for a comprehensive revamping of a possibly broken AfC process

Do not play in my sandbox.

My Projects

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Dcshank/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The November 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article: History of the Firearm Cylinder

Dcshank, Thank you for your review. I created this article because the article "Cylinder (firearm)" had no references or sources, but I took your suggestion and incorporated my article into the "Cylinder (firearm)" article and now it has some references and sources. However, the article still says that it has no references. HIST406-11pbrown19 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating Larry Crane

If you ended up here, please be patient. I am attempting to disambiguate and relink all the broken Larry Cranes out there.01:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

AfC submissions with missing AfC template

Re. WT:AFC#Category: AfC submissions with missing AfC template

Could you please read this, and comment? Thanks, Chzz ► 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first/latest article.

I am completely new on this so this is the first new article I try to submit. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FrontPage_Magazine&oldid=468275421

It seems to have ended up in the English Wiki and of course I want it to the Swedish Wiki, as it is a translation of the beginning of the English article with the same name. How do I accomplish that?

On the global user id it is written: Hemwiki: enwiki and maybe I have to change that to svwiki, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphtheOgre (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RalphtheOgre, please try to find what you need at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Swedish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board They should also be able to use the Swedish section of the English Wiki or direct you to the Swedish Wiki. If you still have problems getting help, please contact me again. I am fairly new here, but I will contact someone who can help you.

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

Hi, did I miss something? How should - say - know what Family Search is? Oh you don't know it? So why did you remove that useful links in the publisher parameter of the cite web template here? mabdul 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul. Family Search may be a useful link, but it is an extra unnecessary link in the citation that does not support the article. If you would like it put back in, I have no problem. DCS (Talk Talk) 05:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, ok, I expressed my concerns not quite clear. I meant: why did you remove all wikilinks in the publisher parameter? They are quite useful (if they were not already linked in the article text/not are doubled and 3, 4, or more times linked (the reason youtube was only linked only one time)). I understand to remove wikilinks like Fidelity, although it would be better to link to Fidelity Investments... (or leaving a {{dn}}) mabdul 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand your point, perhaps I deleted too hastily because sometimes articles are over linked, and this particular article is starting to look like a very over linked advertisement. :-( I will put the Family Search link back in. I try to keep links one to a article at the first occurrence. You are also correct, I should have linked Fidelity Investments, but with the big overload in AfC, I have tried not to spend too much time on any one article. --DCS (Talk Talk) 17:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi Don. Concerning this, that article was not submitted by me. I was merely taking it out of categories. Sorry for the confusion. BOVINEBOY2008 18:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for a comprehensive revamping of a possibly broken AfC process

Moved here.

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1845 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

ShareSoc Article

Thanks for reviewing my article about ShareSoc.

I did include references to several independent press reports mentioning ShareSoc, which I hoped would establish notability. Should I say more about the background to those press reports?

ShareSoc is the UK's largest individual shareholder representative organisation, with over 1,500 members. However, that fact cannot yet be independently sourced, which is why I didn't mention it in the article. Should I wait until I can cite a reference to that fact?

Marben100 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marben100: My apologies. I saw the lists, newsletters, etc. Just stuff from the Society and did not see the news articles. The two news articles are enough for notability. You can mention the 1500 members, not everything needs cited, unless questioned. The other stuff is distracting as I have proved. Lists don't prove anything. I'm ready to crash, or I would fix it for you. If you leave the 2 news articles and any important citation items, leave me a note here, and I will look again and probably approve your article in the morning. Thanks :- ) DCS 08:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the number of members, as you suggested. Not quite sure what you mean by "lists". I'd be most grateful if you'd like to make any further improvements. TIA Marben100 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists would be WFIC membership list, EuroInvestors membership list, List of newsletters. If they support and are relevant, then leave them. I moved the website link to External Links, this is proper. I think your article is ready for the big time. However, is this the name you would like to use for the article? You can change it my moving it to a new name. You can also add redirect(s) so that another name points to the correct article. Thanks. :- ) DCS 16:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Lists removed and replaced by relevant external website links. Yes, I would like to keep the article title as I've set it. AIUI, once the article is "live", I can add a redirect page for "ShareSoc", which is what I intend to do. I'm happy for it to go live now, if you are.

Censor

I believe you are intentionally censoring information from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia that is undermining its credibility as a reliable source of public information.

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects.

987Time321 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. It is public information. Anything added is personal opinion or original research, see: WP:NOT. You may contact an administrator to express you concerns. --:- ) DCS 16:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Goodman

This was already declined for spurious reasons a year ago (despite multiple sources, the original decliner just claimed that JG "appears to be a non-notable person"). The submitter has already been gone for a year and seems unlikely to come back to do any more editing. As this version is both better sourced and far older than the other article, it shouldn't just languish in AfC purgatory until the possible and perhaps unlikely return of the submitter.

I have undeclined the article and moved it to article space. It is now at Jeremiah Goodman (artist). I am going to ask an administrator to merge the history of this article with the other one.

This is one of several dubious AfC closures I have seen. I am not talking about yours, which would have been reasonable under the circumstances, assuming this had been a new submission, but about the original one by Ktr101. --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned after looking at the dates and previous deletion discussions, and not sure how to handle it. The article was found orphaned in 'AfC submissions with missing AfC template' which I and others are attempting to clean out. Thanks for you effort. :- ) DCS 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure this is the best way of handling this, but it looks like the newer article probably needs to be deleted rather than merged. It appears to be identical to [1], which is dated two months earlier. That links to and has probably copied its text from [2], which is presumably even older. That would solve the issue, as the other (former AfC) article can then simply be slipped into place under the undisambiguated title. --Hegvald (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this. Would you care to do the honors? :- ) DCS 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a db-copyvio tag on the page. --Hegvald (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Submission

hi,

i am new in wikipedia and somewhat confused on how to go about things especially in editing the page i submitted. can you help me with it?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theihb (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did fine. Your article Hospital of Bahrain was approved by Kevin Rutherford (talk) at 21:30, 2012 January 17‎ :- ) DCS 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

thanks.. i wasn't actually aware of it until you told me here :-) hehehe... anyway, can i still edit the page and add more information? if that article is still subject for approval though, will the changes be visible to other users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.14.118 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the earlier message sir... was just ecstatic that my submission was finally approved... as for the other questions, please see above. thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theihb (talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue to edit your article as much as you like. Your edits will be immediately visible. All reviewing from now on, will be done by readers. There is a New Page Patrol WP:NPP that checks pages also, they may have some input. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Enjoy and thanks. :- ) DCS 16:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabryan article

Hi, Thank you very much for listing my article. You have made some comments and I have made changes to the article that I feel cover them all now. Can you have a look again please and see if you are satisfied that the quality and other guidelines have now been met? On the question of writing like an advertisement, it is always a tricky area when writing about fashion because it is near-impossible to avoid some descriptive terms that might be read as being promotional. I have read many other comparable entries and feel that I have made this one as neutral as possible by comparison. Many thanks in advance. Dimmo13 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is very difficult not to be promotional, especially if you are passionate about the subject. Your article is better, I have removed some templates. I reordered the last 2 sections. You may remove template if you feel the requirement has been met. However, readers may add templates also. Your article probably has too many citations, such as would be reguired for WP:BLP. You could site 2 or 3 of the most popular magazines, for example. Links to other articles and articles linking to your article are good and helpful. I have fixed your 1st citation. Most or all of the others should be fixed. It is not hard using the citation tool in the menu bar at top of editing window. Don't worry if you break something, you can always repair or undo your edits. Happy editing. :- ) DCS 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]