![]() | 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. |
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."), and given this a source that has passed FAC source reviews and been accepted by our reliable sources noticeboard, I think we're OK using it for one small, uncontentious point. Thanks. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 ( talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kagundu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jdcomix ( talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Reluctantly messed with your edit on RF resonant cavity thruster. I think the crux of the controversy is what this device is, not if it's correct. The "inventors" claim that it's a space drive, but actually it's a microwave oven. Anyways, nice editing with you. Heptor ( talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
For blocking the trolling sock(?). Any thoughts if the edits of the registered editor who displayed a similar levels of battleground mentality/NPA violations merit at least a warning? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you perhaps mean to fully protect this article? The semi-protection you applied won't have any effect on any of the editors who have made changes to the article over the month of October... Just figured I'd message you and give you a heads up. :-) Let me know what your thoughts are (ping me in your response here so that I'm notified); I think you might want to consider modifying the protection level you applied here. Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I may have altered some of your contributions. Could you check if the refs and intent are still correct? X1\ ( talk) 21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Background: Comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please read them before commenting here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood what I said; regardless, RSN is not the place to discuss politics.
Atsme
Talk
📧
18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Are you kidding me? How is TalkOrigins not a reliable source? 七战功成 23:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that. There is no reason that TalkOrigins cannot be a reliable source. 七战功成 23:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I had something to do before so I didn't reply to you in time. Now I am back to write something. This doesn't make it an unreliable source, TalkOrigins is recommended by a number of scientific organization and mainstream medias. The article's content is also exactly what TalkOrigins mainly focuses. So it should be reliable. 七战功成 02:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
"Science"and "Scientific American" magazine: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/139.1, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/other-resources-for-defen/ The Dallas Morning News: https://web.archive.org/web/20061211193709/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/arts/stories/DN-web_07rel.ART.State.Edition1.4db5ac8.html National Center for Science Education: https://web.archive.org/web/20071021130247/http://ncseweb.org/link.asp?category=7 Since you said you guys won't accept it no matter what, so be it. I just provide some evidence for what I said. 七战功成 17:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed at the "Counter narrative" AfD, it seems you have responded to almost every delete vote or maybe every delete vote. I just want to let you know this might be overdoing it. There is a word for this behavior, but I can't think of it. Respectfully, it is something akin to dropping the stick. And I know it is easy to get caught up and advocate against those pesky delete votes. I've done it myself in the distant past. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:13, 27 October 2019 (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. |
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."), and given this a source that has passed FAC source reviews and been accepted by our reliable sources noticeboard, I think we're OK using it for one small, uncontentious point. Thanks. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 ( talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kagundu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jdcomix ( talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Reluctantly messed with your edit on RF resonant cavity thruster. I think the crux of the controversy is what this device is, not if it's correct. The "inventors" claim that it's a space drive, but actually it's a microwave oven. Anyways, nice editing with you. Heptor ( talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
For blocking the trolling sock(?). Any thoughts if the edits of the registered editor who displayed a similar levels of battleground mentality/NPA violations merit at least a warning? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you perhaps mean to fully protect this article? The semi-protection you applied won't have any effect on any of the editors who have made changes to the article over the month of October... Just figured I'd message you and give you a heads up. :-) Let me know what your thoughts are (ping me in your response here so that I'm notified); I think you might want to consider modifying the protection level you applied here. Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I may have altered some of your contributions. Could you check if the refs and intent are still correct? X1\ ( talk) 21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Background: Comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please read them before commenting here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood what I said; regardless, RSN is not the place to discuss politics.
Atsme
Talk
📧
18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Are you kidding me? How is TalkOrigins not a reliable source? 七战功成 23:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that. There is no reason that TalkOrigins cannot be a reliable source. 七战功成 23:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I had something to do before so I didn't reply to you in time. Now I am back to write something. This doesn't make it an unreliable source, TalkOrigins is recommended by a number of scientific organization and mainstream medias. The article's content is also exactly what TalkOrigins mainly focuses. So it should be reliable. 七战功成 02:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
"Science"and "Scientific American" magazine: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/139.1, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/other-resources-for-defen/ The Dallas Morning News: https://web.archive.org/web/20061211193709/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/arts/stories/DN-web_07rel.ART.State.Edition1.4db5ac8.html National Center for Science Education: https://web.archive.org/web/20071021130247/http://ncseweb.org/link.asp?category=7 Since you said you guys won't accept it no matter what, so be it. I just provide some evidence for what I said. 七战功成 17:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed at the "Counter narrative" AfD, it seems you have responded to almost every delete vote or maybe every delete vote. I just want to let you know this might be overdoing it. There is a word for this behavior, but I can't think of it. Respectfully, it is something akin to dropping the stick. And I know it is easy to get caught up and advocate against those pesky delete votes. I've done it myself in the distant past. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)