![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please do not {{ ping}} me in every edit or edit summary in which you mention me. It clogs my notification list, and is annoying. If I post in a discussion, that is my considered word. I will usually return only if an editor asks for clarification or for an answer strictly in reply to an argument of theirs.
Pinging can also offend against WP:CANVASS.
I keep my email open, but disapprove of WP emails outside exceptional circumstances. I think I've been involved in WP emails 5 times:
IMO, WP email should only be used for trivialities or emergencies. Everything in between is for Talk Pages.
BTW, your WP activity is looking somewhat unbalanced. Most editors have over 90% in mainspace edits (the red segment). Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I am curious how you could read a news article titled ""Saskatchewan, New Brunswick get new senators" and conclude that a Senator has been appointed to represent British Columbia? 45.72.245.7 ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going through closing some TfDs when I came across your comments here; they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion. Primefac ( talk) 03:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I have no problem with the Snow close of this article, but I am a touch confused by your summary here. [2] You state that only SmokeyJoe notionally !voted "keep," and there is a summary to that effect, but clicking the history here [3] shows three other keep votes and nothing from SmokeyJoe. Was there a parallel discussion? I am a little confused. In any case, you could update the summary and say there was alread a clear consensus for a Snow keep. It was not just SmokeyJoe. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
In JOO: (1) good redirect to Jew (disambiguation), near homonym. I've added the reverse redirect from Jew (disambiguation). (2) Don't pipe links on DAB pages per WP:DABPIPE; which specifies some rare exceptions. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-reasoned closure of the AfD as "no consensus". You're entirely right to point out WP:RAPID, I've learnt from past experience that sending an article to AfD too soon after the event is generally not a good idea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Ionian Sea earthquake). Mikenorton ( talk) 09:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I was literally in the process of typing out three paragraphs on this when Sandstein closed the discussion, but the headlines are: (1) I hate almost all SNGs and I think Wikipedia would be better off without them; (2) I think WP:PROF is an exception; and (3) the reason why I think so is because I feel that we shouldn't need reliable sources to discuss things that are reliable sources.
What I mean is that when university professors publish their findings in scholarly journals, those are impeccable sources. Indispensable, if we want to write a reliable encyclopaedia. But we often can't find sources for articles about the professors or the scholarly journals themselves. More than ten years ago, Drmies and I collaborated on an essay about this.— S Marshall T/ C 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The three entries in Seven Isles look fine to me, even if the Heptanese are more often known as the Seven Islands. A model DAB page...
...which doesn't look in any way necessary or useful. The distinction between isle and island is trifling, and they're sometimes interchangeable ( Isles of Scilly and Scilly Islands). If you propose a WP:MERGE to Seven Islands, you might just have a support !vote. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I've taken off your {{ db-g14}} tag. There is no requirement that a DAB page should contain any bluelinks by its name, only that each entry should have a bluelink pointing somewhere useful. I've seen {{ geodis}} pages which were all or largely redlinks, and {{ hndis}} pages which contained only a couple of characters in TV series. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dmehus, I submit that you may not be abiding fully to the five pilars. You seem to be making unilateral decisions on pages and making changes without concensus, fact-checking, or research. I ask that you please use concensus before you delete, redirect, remove others from the wikipedia platform. In regard to your changes to "America is still the place" - book written by Charlie Walker, you redirected to an actor's page. This does not appear to be relevant to the degree of "redirecting" and deleting an entire page. Consequently, Mr. Walker's work as a writer has been summarily deleted from wikipedia history.
Please show, state the research you conducted and the consensus you sought prior to making these changes. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I admit I'm slightly confused by your additional requests of me. By the date stamps and time it appears you are asking me to build the very consensus you had not participating in prior to making fundemental edits to a wiki page. BRD is not mandated and might not be weilded as "rule" before consensus for edits takes place. Please cite the good faith rule you are following with your redirect. I was the originator of the America is still the place page. I believe consensus is your burden, responsibility, due diligence. It appears you are making unilateral edits. Please state your research, consenus and conclusion for the redirect. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the discussion has been closed already, but just to answer your point that you made at the RM, I would have thought common sense could also apply from a process point of view too. If we've just spent a month discussing something, and the consensus emerged for a new title (and I don't think everyone who !voted in the prior RM had completely ignored the question of whether it might be Novel or novel), it is reasonable to expect the subject to be done and dusted at least for a little while. For what it's worth I also don't the arguments made by the nominator don't stand up to scrutiny IMHO either, and maybe you're right that I should have pointed this out to the nominator too, so that they can learn from it. The issues I see are:
CDC [4], ASM [5], Medscape [6]. All three call it a "Novel Coronavirus" in the title, but then go on to call it "novel coronavirus" in the body of the text. This is very typical of a lot of media sources, where titles are routinely written in (unsurprisingly) title case. That's not our policy here though, we write in sentence case unless sources routinely use title case everywhere, including in the body. Thanks for the comment, anyway, and I've been pleased to see you around the place in the last few months - you seem generally to have a good sound grasp of what's going on here, and a welcome addition to the ranks! — Amakuru ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
✗ Fail. See also
WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.
|
---|
![]()
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Megathread requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Less Unless ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, I just noticed
Googlewhore and
I just work here in the new pages feed. Looking at the guidance from
WP:SOFTSISP (Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects
), I'm kind of doubtful those meet the intent. Just something to keep in mind before creating many more like this, and I could be wrong about these two, other editors might disagree.
Schazjmd
(talk)
23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
✗ Fail. See also
WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.
|
---|
Hello, Dmehus I wanted to let you know that I just tagged I just work here for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks! (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) |
![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Megathread. Since you had some involvement with the Megathread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Guy ( help!) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I see that you've got the I-wanna-be-an-admin box on your User Page. I haven't the slightest wish to be an admin, but here are some tips. I think you're WP:NOTYET, but that you're getting there. You're working in near-adminny areas like WP:XFD, which is good. You only have 5,939 edits, but they're spread around. You've never been on the wrong end of a block. (How do I know that? from this.)
If you keep working in XFD, you'll get better at it and be noticed by admins. Follow WP:RFA to see what makes for a successful candidature. Follow WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, and so on to see what other admins handle. Look for some more of those interesting report tools (you can't have too many of them, or know too many WP:SHORTCUTs). Also see WP:ARBCOM for what to avoid! One thing I've seen from rootling around in the backwaters of WP is, that many admins, and also non-admin WikiGnomes and other WikiFauna, have specialities. The only reason for going for adminship (other than WP:HATCOLLECTing) is to be more efficient in your speciality areas.
An RFA-type supplementary question. An editor is repeatedly posting the mobile number of a 13-yo Indian actress in her WP biography. What action do you take? (It took me some time to find the answer when I fell across that problem, but it was obviously a case of drop everything.)
Another RFA-type supplementary question, also from real life. An editor emails you, asking you to edit an article for pay. The edit history unsurprisingly shows signs of WP:COI editing, including by that editor. What action(s) do you take? Narky Blert ( talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
04:42, 29 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) (view/restore) 20:52, 25 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) (view/restore)
See you again in a few days? :) -- kingboyk ( talk) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I dont know if i'm supposed to write things like this on rfd, so I decided to detail why I watchlisted it. So I myself randomly type things up on my keyboard looking for what pops up. So one day I typed up qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm and got Qwertyuiopasdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./ listed in the drop-down menu underneath qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm in all caps. (I believe that is what it is called) I have a habit of watchlisting any article I visit, so I obviously stuck the article on my watchlist. So that means it was only today that I decided to participate in the Rfd. Quite an odd story, but boredom in study hall does things to you. If reply to this I may not reply. MegaGoat ( Talk) ( Contribs) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, while I'm happy to answer questions on my talk page or yours, I'm honestly a little uncomfortable with how frequently you've been calling me into various discussions elsewhere. I'm not a special authority when it comes to policy, and would appreciate it if you didn't bring me up in quite so many RfDs/MfDs. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus. You can refine, tweak, change, revise any comment you make at RfD or anywhere else on Wikipedia, but you should try and follow WP:REDACT so that it's clear the the post others have already responded to has been changed in some way since they posted their response. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could you sign your proposed list of items that would go in a new article, please, so I can comment? -- Red King ( talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for my confusion, but this sentence: Such terms could only be amended by the a consensus majority representing two-thirds in support of both
Member states of the European Union and
Member states of the European Union.
Am I reading something wrong, or did you perhaps mistakenly repeat the one article name twice? Or am I misunderstanding something?
-- Pinchme123 ( talk) 17:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
Dmehus, and thank you for your comments at
WP:RAUTO. In case you missed this in the introduction to the redirect whitelist, I wanted to mention this bit from the introduction: For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators).
Now, while you have been leaving comments of support, it doesn't appear that you are in the New Page Patrol. Your comments may be helpful, but it can be misleading if you are voting in support of users being added to the whitelist when you are not in the New Page Patrol yourself. If you would like to continue leaving comments of support or opposition, I would advise that you become part of the New Page Patrol by requesting to do so at
WP:PERM so that you may be granted the right. Thank you for understanding.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Why do you dislike redirects from draft space?
Are you familiar with how drafts are accepted in Articles for Creation? The acceptance script moves the draft page from draft space into article space, and the redirect is left from draft space to article space. Do you think either that this is wrong, or that this is a special case that should be the only time that a redirect from draft space is allowed? What is wrong with redirects from draft space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at
WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
You've just thanked me for taking part in an RfA (not your own). I don't understand why you would do that: my vote was certainly not influenced by you and there's no need for you to react to it. Doubtless you meant well, but I'm afraid I don't feel that it's appropriate. Ingratis ( talk) 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
This should be marked as needs citation.
I currently attend the Master of Public Policy program at the University of Toronto and I'm being told that Faith Goldy never graduated from this program. Savbers ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Good work closing this one. Just a quick note, the page as created (by Narky Blert) is a set index, not a dab. Wikiacc ( ¶) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Dmehus
Thank you for creating White-supremacists.
User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
I have reviewed your redirect, and added rcats {{ R from common noun}}, {{ R from alternative spelling}} (for the variant punctuation), and {{ R to related topic}}. You may be interested in Archer, a script for automatically categorizing created redirects.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Doug Mehus T· C 00:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome, Dmehus to the New Page Patrol team.
Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server ( invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. One note I observed at a recent AfD - SNG stands for Subject Notability Guidline not Supposed Notability Guideline.. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. User:Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
I think that normally, it would be better not to R3 it. However, I think that the initial editor's history of frankly bizarre and unconstructive edits is further evidence of being "implausible" per R3, and I don't think the whole RfD bureaucracy is necessary for this case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just received an automated system notification following
this edit, thanking me for my 10,000th edit, which stated, You just made your ten thousandth edit; thank you so very much!
. Does anyone know if these sort of system notifications are reported in a public log file that I can link to, similar to the "thanks log"?
Cheers,
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus, Thanks for reviewing my user page. I am just reaching out looking for some general support or maybe to find an advisor or mentor. I've been having a lot of trouble since Feb 19 starting with numerous edits from an IP editor. Things got very lengthy and convoluted.
I feel I am being steamrolled by two editors with longer edit history primarily not willing to deal with one issue at a time instead it creates a lot of confusion. They posted to the notice boards, not me. Not acknowledging my points, or I thought something was resolved like the MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there was no objection after I replied on the talk page with sources, but then today it was back and forth until finally I think there was acceptance on this. I have said I am open to discussion on specifics but they were unwilling, just making mostly hostile blanket comments instead of addressing details. I feel there were a lot of false statements made against me. I really just want to cooperate and deal with things logically and precisely, with the general hostility it creates a lot of confusion and distraction, lack of acknowledgement of things I say. I was disturbed by the insulting comments and now the user who denied that they were personal attacks wants to ban me even though I remained civil. I can see the user who just said he wants to ban me tried to get others involved [ [7]] Hoping to get a truce where we can deal with issues one at a time logically and precisely without insults and getting personal. - Khawue ( talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How could i create pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I moved " Blue-ribbon panel" back to " Blue-ribbon committee", which is the clear common name. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm liking this "@Kingboyk: You're right" stuff :)
I'll leave this here rather than clutter up the RfD. A little bit of background info you may or may not find interesting...
As I understand it, most of Formula 1's carbon footprint comes not from a few racing cars going round a track, but from the air travel getting the cars, equipment, personnel and overseas fans there, and other fans driving to the event. The Tour de France is probably an even worse polluter if you think about it - and they race bicycles! :)
Current F1 engines are a technological marvel; they are 1.6 litre turbos - the same capacity you might find in a shopping car - but hybrid, and produce some 1000hp!
There is a "green" version of single-seater motorsport, where the cars are all electric: Formula E. Of course, it's debateable quite how green that is too, because as with the other international sporting events it's getting people and equipment to the race circuits which cause the pollution. I doubt we'll see a Greenpeace sponsorship any time soon but, who knows; there is I suppose some promotional value in Formula E as a way of presenting to people a possible petrol-free future.
Me, I'm holding on to my 1989 hot hatch until either it or I die :) -- kingboyk ( talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug - just wanted to share a bit of advice that is based on my personal experiences: I know you mean well and that your comments are made in good faith but it is always better/safer to not respond to each oppose or opposition comment in an RfC, MfD, AfD, etc. because there is a chance it can/will be used against you as being disruptive - see WP:BLUDGEON. Have fun - be safe and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you're on the talk page anyway, and evidently enjoy meta discussions, could you please give an 'aye' or 'nay' to my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#T3_discrepancy? I am not suggesting how you should respond nor do I have any vested interest other than wishing to see the discussion gain some traction and the discrepancy between policy and template ironed out in one way or another. -- kingboyk ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for confirming me. In just 4 hours, I can edit semi-protected pages, the first time in literally months. Gale5050 ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=Draft:3-G_Home_Video
Ok, this is my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few:
The foundation of all content is RS. All but the most basic of facts (the sky is blue) require at least one RS. Opinions often need to be attributed to the author. We document pretty much everything here, as long as its notable enough to be mentioned in multiple RS. We document facts, opinions, truth, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc.
Our job here is defined by Jimbo Wales as documenting "the sum total of human knowledge," [1] [2] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.
Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for anyone to just add their own articles or ideas. Use a blog or website for that. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials
Apart from the Misty variety, there is also White Mountains (Middle-earth) with probably even less raison d'etre. I'd have thought they'd be fine just redirected to Gondor#Ered Nimrais which basically says all one might wish to say about them, though folks might want to merge a couple of sentences from the 'Inspiration' section if deeply into detail. As for their significance and critical evaluation, I'm almost certain there just isn't any, i.e. the article's state reflects about all the RS possible. Guess you may wish to wait until the Misty merge is completed, or maybe they're better together, I have no idea. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 23:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Merge. The Misty Mountains you can at least make an argument for, the White Mountains have way less notability, even in-universe. Honestly, not much needs to make the move from here. I'd been considering taking the White Mountains to AfD for awhile. And yes, the White Mountains were part of Gondor, so it works. Hog Farm ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please do not {{ ping}} me in every edit or edit summary in which you mention me. It clogs my notification list, and is annoying. If I post in a discussion, that is my considered word. I will usually return only if an editor asks for clarification or for an answer strictly in reply to an argument of theirs.
Pinging can also offend against WP:CANVASS.
I keep my email open, but disapprove of WP emails outside exceptional circumstances. I think I've been involved in WP emails 5 times:
IMO, WP email should only be used for trivialities or emergencies. Everything in between is for Talk Pages.
BTW, your WP activity is looking somewhat unbalanced. Most editors have over 90% in mainspace edits (the red segment). Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I am curious how you could read a news article titled ""Saskatchewan, New Brunswick get new senators" and conclude that a Senator has been appointed to represent British Columbia? 45.72.245.7 ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going through closing some TfDs when I came across your comments here; they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion. Primefac ( talk) 03:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I have no problem with the Snow close of this article, but I am a touch confused by your summary here. [2] You state that only SmokeyJoe notionally !voted "keep," and there is a summary to that effect, but clicking the history here [3] shows three other keep votes and nothing from SmokeyJoe. Was there a parallel discussion? I am a little confused. In any case, you could update the summary and say there was alread a clear consensus for a Snow keep. It was not just SmokeyJoe. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
In JOO: (1) good redirect to Jew (disambiguation), near homonym. I've added the reverse redirect from Jew (disambiguation). (2) Don't pipe links on DAB pages per WP:DABPIPE; which specifies some rare exceptions. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-reasoned closure of the AfD as "no consensus". You're entirely right to point out WP:RAPID, I've learnt from past experience that sending an article to AfD too soon after the event is generally not a good idea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Ionian Sea earthquake). Mikenorton ( talk) 09:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I was literally in the process of typing out three paragraphs on this when Sandstein closed the discussion, but the headlines are: (1) I hate almost all SNGs and I think Wikipedia would be better off without them; (2) I think WP:PROF is an exception; and (3) the reason why I think so is because I feel that we shouldn't need reliable sources to discuss things that are reliable sources.
What I mean is that when university professors publish their findings in scholarly journals, those are impeccable sources. Indispensable, if we want to write a reliable encyclopaedia. But we often can't find sources for articles about the professors or the scholarly journals themselves. More than ten years ago, Drmies and I collaborated on an essay about this.— S Marshall T/ C 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The three entries in Seven Isles look fine to me, even if the Heptanese are more often known as the Seven Islands. A model DAB page...
...which doesn't look in any way necessary or useful. The distinction between isle and island is trifling, and they're sometimes interchangeable ( Isles of Scilly and Scilly Islands). If you propose a WP:MERGE to Seven Islands, you might just have a support !vote. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I've taken off your {{ db-g14}} tag. There is no requirement that a DAB page should contain any bluelinks by its name, only that each entry should have a bluelink pointing somewhere useful. I've seen {{ geodis}} pages which were all or largely redlinks, and {{ hndis}} pages which contained only a couple of characters in TV series. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dmehus, I submit that you may not be abiding fully to the five pilars. You seem to be making unilateral decisions on pages and making changes without concensus, fact-checking, or research. I ask that you please use concensus before you delete, redirect, remove others from the wikipedia platform. In regard to your changes to "America is still the place" - book written by Charlie Walker, you redirected to an actor's page. This does not appear to be relevant to the degree of "redirecting" and deleting an entire page. Consequently, Mr. Walker's work as a writer has been summarily deleted from wikipedia history.
Please show, state the research you conducted and the consensus you sought prior to making these changes. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I admit I'm slightly confused by your additional requests of me. By the date stamps and time it appears you are asking me to build the very consensus you had not participating in prior to making fundemental edits to a wiki page. BRD is not mandated and might not be weilded as "rule" before consensus for edits takes place. Please cite the good faith rule you are following with your redirect. I was the originator of the America is still the place page. I believe consensus is your burden, responsibility, due diligence. It appears you are making unilateral edits. Please state your research, consenus and conclusion for the redirect. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the discussion has been closed already, but just to answer your point that you made at the RM, I would have thought common sense could also apply from a process point of view too. If we've just spent a month discussing something, and the consensus emerged for a new title (and I don't think everyone who !voted in the prior RM had completely ignored the question of whether it might be Novel or novel), it is reasonable to expect the subject to be done and dusted at least for a little while. For what it's worth I also don't the arguments made by the nominator don't stand up to scrutiny IMHO either, and maybe you're right that I should have pointed this out to the nominator too, so that they can learn from it. The issues I see are:
CDC [4], ASM [5], Medscape [6]. All three call it a "Novel Coronavirus" in the title, but then go on to call it "novel coronavirus" in the body of the text. This is very typical of a lot of media sources, where titles are routinely written in (unsurprisingly) title case. That's not our policy here though, we write in sentence case unless sources routinely use title case everywhere, including in the body. Thanks for the comment, anyway, and I've been pleased to see you around the place in the last few months - you seem generally to have a good sound grasp of what's going on here, and a welcome addition to the ranks! — Amakuru ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
✗ Fail. See also
WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.
|
---|
![]()
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Megathread requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Less Unless ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, I just noticed
Googlewhore and
I just work here in the new pages feed. Looking at the guidance from
WP:SOFTSISP (Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects
), I'm kind of doubtful those meet the intent. Just something to keep in mind before creating many more like this, and I could be wrong about these two, other editors might disagree.
Schazjmd
(talk)
23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
✗ Fail. See also
WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.
|
---|
Hello, Dmehus I wanted to let you know that I just tagged I just work here for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks! (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) |
![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Megathread. Since you had some involvement with the Megathread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Guy ( help!) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I see that you've got the I-wanna-be-an-admin box on your User Page. I haven't the slightest wish to be an admin, but here are some tips. I think you're WP:NOTYET, but that you're getting there. You're working in near-adminny areas like WP:XFD, which is good. You only have 5,939 edits, but they're spread around. You've never been on the wrong end of a block. (How do I know that? from this.)
If you keep working in XFD, you'll get better at it and be noticed by admins. Follow WP:RFA to see what makes for a successful candidature. Follow WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, and so on to see what other admins handle. Look for some more of those interesting report tools (you can't have too many of them, or know too many WP:SHORTCUTs). Also see WP:ARBCOM for what to avoid! One thing I've seen from rootling around in the backwaters of WP is, that many admins, and also non-admin WikiGnomes and other WikiFauna, have specialities. The only reason for going for adminship (other than WP:HATCOLLECTing) is to be more efficient in your speciality areas.
An RFA-type supplementary question. An editor is repeatedly posting the mobile number of a 13-yo Indian actress in her WP biography. What action do you take? (It took me some time to find the answer when I fell across that problem, but it was obviously a case of drop everything.)
Another RFA-type supplementary question, also from real life. An editor emails you, asking you to edit an article for pay. The edit history unsurprisingly shows signs of WP:COI editing, including by that editor. What action(s) do you take? Narky Blert ( talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
04:42, 29 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) (view/restore) 20:52, 25 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) (view/restore)
See you again in a few days? :) -- kingboyk ( talk) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I dont know if i'm supposed to write things like this on rfd, so I decided to detail why I watchlisted it. So I myself randomly type things up on my keyboard looking for what pops up. So one day I typed up qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm and got Qwertyuiopasdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./ listed in the drop-down menu underneath qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm in all caps. (I believe that is what it is called) I have a habit of watchlisting any article I visit, so I obviously stuck the article on my watchlist. So that means it was only today that I decided to participate in the Rfd. Quite an odd story, but boredom in study hall does things to you. If reply to this I may not reply. MegaGoat ( Talk) ( Contribs) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, while I'm happy to answer questions on my talk page or yours, I'm honestly a little uncomfortable with how frequently you've been calling me into various discussions elsewhere. I'm not a special authority when it comes to policy, and would appreciate it if you didn't bring me up in quite so many RfDs/MfDs. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus. You can refine, tweak, change, revise any comment you make at RfD or anywhere else on Wikipedia, but you should try and follow WP:REDACT so that it's clear the the post others have already responded to has been changed in some way since they posted their response. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could you sign your proposed list of items that would go in a new article, please, so I can comment? -- Red King ( talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for my confusion, but this sentence: Such terms could only be amended by the a consensus majority representing two-thirds in support of both
Member states of the European Union and
Member states of the European Union.
Am I reading something wrong, or did you perhaps mistakenly repeat the one article name twice? Or am I misunderstanding something?
-- Pinchme123 ( talk) 17:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
Dmehus, and thank you for your comments at
WP:RAUTO. In case you missed this in the introduction to the redirect whitelist, I wanted to mention this bit from the introduction: For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators).
Now, while you have been leaving comments of support, it doesn't appear that you are in the New Page Patrol. Your comments may be helpful, but it can be misleading if you are voting in support of users being added to the whitelist when you are not in the New Page Patrol yourself. If you would like to continue leaving comments of support or opposition, I would advise that you become part of the New Page Patrol by requesting to do so at
WP:PERM so that you may be granted the right. Thank you for understanding.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Why do you dislike redirects from draft space?
Are you familiar with how drafts are accepted in Articles for Creation? The acceptance script moves the draft page from draft space into article space, and the redirect is left from draft space to article space. Do you think either that this is wrong, or that this is a special case that should be the only time that a redirect from draft space is allowed? What is wrong with redirects from draft space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at
WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
You've just thanked me for taking part in an RfA (not your own). I don't understand why you would do that: my vote was certainly not influenced by you and there's no need for you to react to it. Doubtless you meant well, but I'm afraid I don't feel that it's appropriate. Ingratis ( talk) 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
This should be marked as needs citation.
I currently attend the Master of Public Policy program at the University of Toronto and I'm being told that Faith Goldy never graduated from this program. Savbers ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Good work closing this one. Just a quick note, the page as created (by Narky Blert) is a set index, not a dab. Wikiacc ( ¶) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Dmehus
Thank you for creating White-supremacists.
User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
I have reviewed your redirect, and added rcats {{ R from common noun}}, {{ R from alternative spelling}} (for the variant punctuation), and {{ R to related topic}}. You may be interested in Archer, a script for automatically categorizing created redirects.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Doug Mehus T· C 00:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome, Dmehus to the New Page Patrol team.
Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server ( invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. One note I observed at a recent AfD - SNG stands for Subject Notability Guidline not Supposed Notability Guideline.. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. User:Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
I think that normally, it would be better not to R3 it. However, I think that the initial editor's history of frankly bizarre and unconstructive edits is further evidence of being "implausible" per R3, and I don't think the whole RfD bureaucracy is necessary for this case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just received an automated system notification following
this edit, thanking me for my 10,000th edit, which stated, You just made your ten thousandth edit; thank you so very much!
. Does anyone know if these sort of system notifications are reported in a public log file that I can link to, similar to the "thanks log"?
Cheers,
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dmehus, Thanks for reviewing my user page. I am just reaching out looking for some general support or maybe to find an advisor or mentor. I've been having a lot of trouble since Feb 19 starting with numerous edits from an IP editor. Things got very lengthy and convoluted.
I feel I am being steamrolled by two editors with longer edit history primarily not willing to deal with one issue at a time instead it creates a lot of confusion. They posted to the notice boards, not me. Not acknowledging my points, or I thought something was resolved like the MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there was no objection after I replied on the talk page with sources, but then today it was back and forth until finally I think there was acceptance on this. I have said I am open to discussion on specifics but they were unwilling, just making mostly hostile blanket comments instead of addressing details. I feel there were a lot of false statements made against me. I really just want to cooperate and deal with things logically and precisely, with the general hostility it creates a lot of confusion and distraction, lack of acknowledgement of things I say. I was disturbed by the insulting comments and now the user who denied that they were personal attacks wants to ban me even though I remained civil. I can see the user who just said he wants to ban me tried to get others involved [ [7]] Hoping to get a truce where we can deal with issues one at a time logically and precisely without insults and getting personal. - Khawue ( talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How could i create pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I moved " Blue-ribbon panel" back to " Blue-ribbon committee", which is the clear common name. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm liking this "@Kingboyk: You're right" stuff :)
I'll leave this here rather than clutter up the RfD. A little bit of background info you may or may not find interesting...
As I understand it, most of Formula 1's carbon footprint comes not from a few racing cars going round a track, but from the air travel getting the cars, equipment, personnel and overseas fans there, and other fans driving to the event. The Tour de France is probably an even worse polluter if you think about it - and they race bicycles! :)
Current F1 engines are a technological marvel; they are 1.6 litre turbos - the same capacity you might find in a shopping car - but hybrid, and produce some 1000hp!
There is a "green" version of single-seater motorsport, where the cars are all electric: Formula E. Of course, it's debateable quite how green that is too, because as with the other international sporting events it's getting people and equipment to the race circuits which cause the pollution. I doubt we'll see a Greenpeace sponsorship any time soon but, who knows; there is I suppose some promotional value in Formula E as a way of presenting to people a possible petrol-free future.
Me, I'm holding on to my 1989 hot hatch until either it or I die :) -- kingboyk ( talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Doug - just wanted to share a bit of advice that is based on my personal experiences: I know you mean well and that your comments are made in good faith but it is always better/safer to not respond to each oppose or opposition comment in an RfC, MfD, AfD, etc. because there is a chance it can/will be used against you as being disruptive - see WP:BLUDGEON. Have fun - be safe and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you're on the talk page anyway, and evidently enjoy meta discussions, could you please give an 'aye' or 'nay' to my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#T3_discrepancy? I am not suggesting how you should respond nor do I have any vested interest other than wishing to see the discussion gain some traction and the discrepancy between policy and template ironed out in one way or another. -- kingboyk ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for confirming me. In just 4 hours, I can edit semi-protected pages, the first time in literally months. Gale5050 ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=Draft:3-G_Home_Video
Ok, this is my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few:
The foundation of all content is RS. All but the most basic of facts (the sky is blue) require at least one RS. Opinions often need to be attributed to the author. We document pretty much everything here, as long as its notable enough to be mentioned in multiple RS. We document facts, opinions, truth, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc.
Our job here is defined by Jimbo Wales as documenting "the sum total of human knowledge," [1] [2] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.
Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for anyone to just add their own articles or ideas. Use a blog or website for that. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials
Apart from the Misty variety, there is also White Mountains (Middle-earth) with probably even less raison d'etre. I'd have thought they'd be fine just redirected to Gondor#Ered Nimrais which basically says all one might wish to say about them, though folks might want to merge a couple of sentences from the 'Inspiration' section if deeply into detail. As for their significance and critical evaluation, I'm almost certain there just isn't any, i.e. the article's state reflects about all the RS possible. Guess you may wish to wait until the Misty merge is completed, or maybe they're better together, I have no idea. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 23:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Merge. The Misty Mountains you can at least make an argument for, the White Mountains have way less notability, even in-universe. Honestly, not much needs to make the move from here. I'd been considering taking the White Mountains to AfD for awhile. And yes, the White Mountains were part of Gondor, so it works. Hog Farm ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)