User talk:Kanuk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kanuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Paul Cyr 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lulubelle III

Hey Kanuk,

I heard the band Lulubelle III on Marc Riley's radio show and whenever a band is played the BBC auto creates a page for the band based on Wikipedia, Musicbrainz and Wiki Commons images, when I clicked on the band page for more info there was none as there was no page. Thought I'd have a go making one since BBC said anyone can do so. The track that was played is from the second album, their first album was released in 2011. The BBC reckon being played by them warrants a wiki page, some of the reviewers here disagreed and said that local newspapers as well as local radio show had to interview the band and over last six months that has happened. Given that and Festive 50 play and Rodney Bingenheimer airplay I think that the notability criteria is met by now. Musicfan1812 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions about article evaluation

Hi there, thanks for the evaluation of the proposed article for Tami Green! Regarding your comment that the citations are "self-serving," I want to clarify that I am not Tami Green, am not and have never been a client of hers, and have never met or interacted with her in any way. What I think is notable about her is that she is a public figure (she has testified before congress and is an activist who works to reduce stigma surrounding mental illness) who has recovered from borderline personality disorder and has a successful career, two things which are commonly thought to be impossible for people with BPD. Without the BPD factor, it's true that Green's life is not "notable" by wiki standards. But the fact that she has had a relatively normal life, after struggling with severe BPD, is pretty notable for clinicians. The news coverage about her has been for that reason, not because of her work as a life coach:

"Another problem is the entrenched belief that BPD is impossible to treat. Physicians often are reluctant to treat borderlines, as these patients are sometimes called, and their disease is highly stigmatized among health professionals, says Hoffman. But the condition is, in fact, treatable, says Tami Green, a woman in Houston who says she has been cured of the disorder and is now on a mission to spread the word about what exactly BPD is and how it can be relieved." -- San Antonio Express News

It seems to me that I didn't do a good job of explaining Green's notability in the article, so I was wondering if I could get some feedback from you on how to go about it when trying again. For instance, it would really help if you could discuss a bit more which notability guidelines Tami Green did or didn't meet. When deciding whether to write the article, I thought that she met the basic criteria of having been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and that she has made a major contribution to the field just by existing: she has a severe condition that is thought to be untreatable even among healthcare professionals, and she recovered, and has gone on to have a career (any career) despite a condition for which vocational ability is severely hindered, even when compared to other personality disorders (see wiki article on borderline personality disorder for more details if you're interested).

In general, it confuses me that wikipedia considers criminals to be notable, such as Jane Andrews who is explained as being notable for a sensational murder, but not Tami Green, who is notable for a sensational recovery (sensational in the field of psychology and psychiatry, in any case). Could you help explain it to me? That's a sincere question; I really am just trying to understand wiki's guidelines. Thanks so much! Firecatalta (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my user page! I appreciate the feedback. Firecatalta (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering, though: the requirements for reliable sources are that the sources be third-party and published, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You wrote that the San Antonio Express article was not reliable because it includes quotes from Tami Green. However, the example that Wikipedia:Third-party_sources gives for a third-party source is that of "a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." That's not the same as not involving quotes. In fact, "a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter" usually involves interviewing the people involved and getting quotes from them. Further down in the article, the guidelines say that to meet the requirement, the source must be "independent and unaffiliated with the subject." The San Antonio Express news is independent of and unaffiliated with Tami Green. The requirements exclude "self-published material by the subject," and the San Antonio Express news is not published by Tami Green. The requirements exclude "autobiographies and promotional materials," and the San Antonio Express news is not an autobiography of Tami Green, nor is it a "promotional material": it is a news article on her recovery, which is considered newsworthy by the San Antonio Express because in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, her recovery is considered significant. Nowhere in these guidelines does it say that a third-party source cannot include quotes by the person the source is covering. So how is the article about Tami Green in the San Antonio Express not a third-party article? Firecatalta (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Kanuk, thanks for reviewing my first ever post on Medical Center O&P. I have a prosthetic industry background, and know the firm both personally and professionally. I am truly trying to write a neutral, objective entry on who they are, since they have a fascinating story which is notable in the industry and have gotten extensive national media coverage even as a very small business for the unique work that they do. It's been a while since I wrote and cited my work on something like this, so I look forward to hearing if the last round of changes made the post more encyclopedic! Theadkgroup (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rubric_%28company%29

Hi Kanuk, I am afraid I will need some help with this one. My question is whether there is enough content - in need of an edit, or do I need to weed existing external links and add further external mentions of the company. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards Unst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unst (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: reviewing/declining articles

Hey, Kanuk, just a tip for when you review and decline articles, like Media Rights Technologies. Remove the original request for submission when you decline it, or it will still show up in the list of pending articles. Thanks! TheOneSean | Talk to me 14:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Grace Nickel, Kanuk!

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

Thank you for the article.

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

Learn more about page curation.

NextStepChina

Hello!

I noticed that you had rejected our article yet I don't really understand why it was rejected. You mentioned that you think it was written as if it was an advertisement but all of the sources that were referenced to the article are all from media and major universities and the format was in fact the same as another already approved article. I was already advised by another wikipedia editor to make sure the article did not have any peacock words as well as tons of references from 3rd parties that were not compensated by next step china. So, can you pelase specify the section where you deem to be inappropriate? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinaguru2013 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding review of ikman.lk article

Hi Kanuk,

Thanks for reviewing my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ikman.lk).

You've declined it with a comment, saying that the article was purely promotional - I would like to understand your reasoning behind this conclusion.

Firstly, only factual information has been stated in this article - peacock terms and superlatives have been avoided entirely. A lot of care was taken to ensure that the article makes no claims without providing references; all provided citations are reliable and recent. I assume you have already looked through them, rest assured that they were thoroughly researched, and not hastily thrown together.

Secondly with regards to notability, ikman.lk is definitely notable - it is the largest classifieds website operating in Sri Lanka, the only one with it's reach and audience. It's a free website as well, very popular with Sri Lankans who use it frequently to buy and sell used products and commodities. As reported by Alexa.com, ikman.lk is the 8th most visited website in the country - I've seen websites on Wikipedia listed for far less.

I humbly request a reconsideration of your stance regarding this topic; if there is anything specifically unacceptable that you can point out, I will be glad to make the necessary edits.

I look forward to your support, many thanks.Raad17 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

22nd April, 2013

Hi,

Many thanks for your detailed feedback, really appreciate your guidance.

I will update the article as per your recommendations, will request a review once it is ready.

Raad17 (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kanuk, for approving the article "Made in USA Brand Certification Mark". AndreaAufden (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)AndreaAufden

Hi Kanuk, I wanted the title to be "Made in USA Brand Certification Mark, a Made in USA Label." I think it would help with searchibility/findability. The next section could be "Made in USA Brand Certification Mark." Please advise. Thank you, AndreaAufden (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC) AndreaAufden

All right, thank you for your help:) AndreaAufden (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Banff International Research Station

Dear Kanuk,

Thanks for your helpful commentary. This is my first encyclopedia article. I have reworked the draft as you suggested. Could you please re-review it? Thanks.

It is here: Banff International Research Station

Brentkearney (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinaman (porcelain)

As a participant in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinaman_(porcelain), please see Talk:Chinaman_(porcelain)#Merge_discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-submission for ikman.lk

Hi Kanuk,

I have now revised the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ikman.lk) as per your guidelines and re-submitted it for review.

Although I've made significant efforts to remove all promotional hype from it, do let me know if anything still seems inappropriate to you and I will revise again.

Thank you once again for your kind help, your comments were instrumental for me to understand what was wrong with the article - hope it's better this time around.

Best regards, Raad17 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Re review of Conejo Valley Youth Orch

Hi Kanuk, Thank you for reviewing this article. You may have noticed that it was reworked based on the previous reviewer's recommendations. This time, several of the additions and revisions, that were added in response to the previous reviewer, are identified by you as problematic, so a little more information would be a great help.

For example, references that are not local to the orchestra were added this time. Previously, references were all from the county where the orchestra is based, but it now includes articles from more major metro areas, such as Los Angeles. I added the text that the orchestra performed in Vienna, Austria for the same reason, not to "promote" but to illustrate its recognition beyond its locality. Similarly, national results were added (e.g., the notable and internationally-recognized conservatories where the orchestra's graduates attend), as well as analyses of a Los Angeles radio station host and leadership recognition by a civic organization. Based on the previous review, we removed other national and international references pertaining to the orchestra's financial support because the resources were only available in hard-copy form rather than electronic. Did that hurt us? The original opening paragraph was also re-worked with a more objective style. What further suggestions do you have? Thanks again for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfdance (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Dear Kanuk,

I would like to thank you for approving my article, and providing such detailed feedback to help improve it's quality - you truly are a great Wikipedian.

I will continue to work on this article and improve it even further.

Best regards, Raad17 (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Not Approved: SimioLLC

Please Help! I wrote an article you reviewed, Simio LLC. You commented that it contained copyrighted information. I don't know what was copyrighted information that wasn't referenced, I had lots of references. I'm hoping for specific examples so I can edit and resubmit. Thanks! PGHTechWriter (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council Submission Reply

Hey Kanuk, thanks for looking over my submission for the Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council. I appreciate you taking the time to look over Wikipedia articles such as my own and keeping the quality of submissions up.

I have some additional information that attempts to argue the point that the Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council is notable enough to deserve its own page and shouldn't simply be added to the page for the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

While the Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council(AASOC) is based around the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB) they are two separate organizational entities. They both receive their own funding, instead of sharing a pool of funding and do not share any members with one another. In addition they both have their own separate staff members. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council was established to stay at arms length from the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board in order to ensure they they could adequately monitor their activities and report back to the Canadian public. AASOC may be connected to the AASB due to their oversight functions but they are two disparate bodies.

AASOC is not a subsidiary of the AASB. If it was a sub council made up of AASB members then I would agree with you but it was established as a separate organization to keep the integrity of the Auditing and Assurance standard setting process and uphold the trust of the Canadian public. Eyee7 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kanuk,

I did a little more research on the Auditing and Assurance Oversight Council and learned that they not only provide oversight to the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board but to the the Independence Task Force of the Charted Accountant Profession's Public Trust Committee as well. I didn't realize that AASOC provided oversight for another organization completely unrelated to the AASB. I've added an additional paragraph to my original entry explaining AASOC's oversight role and the importance of the Independence Task Force of the Charted Accountant Profession's Public Trust Committee.

Best, Eyee7 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of article, further consideration

I continued my research to improve the article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maryland Terrapins Competetive Cheerleading (Acrobatics & Tumbling), adding various references and adding content to the History section. I wonder if you could take a look at it and suggest what I might specifically do to improve the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Boardgamesrule (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is further enhanced with references from notable sources. Please reconsider. Boardgamesrule (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Made in USA Brand Certification Mark

Somewhat surprised that you accepted this - before I cleaned it up it had formatting errors, in-line external links and no sources. It now has one - and that doesn't demonstrate its notability. Even more surprised that you assessed it as a "B" - it's now a "stub". Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kanuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kanuk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kanuk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)