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. |
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |||||||||||||
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
Hi. Thanks for your edit to the above article. But do you think that the person is not notable for an article? Google search gives plenty of hits, and many articles by this scholar are available in JSTOR. I believe the tag is not justified. Right now I'm unable to provide detailed description of his scientific contribution, but I included a link to one of his books published by a reputable publisher. We refer to Hewsen in many articles about Transcaucasia, as he is one of the leading experts on the ancient history of the region, and an article about him is useful to give some background about who he is. I'm sure it will be expanded further if it is kept. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Robert H. Hewsen is the author of the first ever historical atlas of Armenia, the first historical atlas for any of the former Soviet republics. [1] He is professor emeritus of History at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. He received his B.A. in history...
I think the point here is not just my addition of the clean-up tag, but the new editor before me who, not knowing the system, tried but failed to AfD it. AGF that they meant well and weren't just some general nutter, I think that notability was what they were looking at. And the subject does meet Wikipedia standards for notability, as you know. But the article is a bit light on this.
So we need a punchy introduction. "Foo is a professor emeritus" isn't notability per se, certainly not enough for the new editor and not quite enough for me (Wikipedia standards aren't clear on this either!). "Foo is the author of this unique work [ref]" is notability, and a good one - and right up-front: just as far as the new editor got(!)
There's a compromise here that will work for you (who knows a lot), me (who knows a little) and the new editor (who knows [not intended as an insult] nothing). Perhaps the existing wording but with the unique bit from the UoC in the second sentence? Or mentioned in the first but picked up upon later? Just a bit of <shudder> journalistic punch to get Prof Hewsen away from the danger zone clearly and without ambiguity?
Any ideas? Your article-writing skills are clearly well above-average, so help me out here! What do you think we could say? :o) ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the barnstar, so nice of you. I’m really flattered that my humble efforts are appreciated. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point in calling my post that you recently deleted, original research. While I did discover many facts in this article, through personal investigation, I have always assumed that many other people had discovered many of these facts long before I did. As one example that I was correct in this assumption, I have recently learned that Chicago elementary Schools teach that Chicago is located at the same latitude as Rome. (Props to Wikipedian Speciate). I don’t know if anyone before me has discovered that no other pair of cities, both of which are at least as populous as these two cities, is so close in latitude. I believe, though, that any source that publishes coordinates for any group of cities, also publishes, by implication, the differences between these coordinates, and comparisons of these differences, and that, for this reason, any source that publishes coordinates of all cities this populous can, be cited as a source for all that I wrote in the article you deleted.
While we may often think that ideas of ours, are original, often these ideas are only new to us. I consider it flattering to me, that you consider my ideas, to be original research, but in this case, I believe that you are incorrect to believe this.
George Pelly-Bosela
gpelly.bosela@gmail.com
Also, you can reread the article you deleted on the Chicago discussion page. GPelly-Bosela 06:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)
Sorry bout that... nat t a n g 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redvers. Thank you for removing the Mew 2 article. It's been there for quite a while. Could you do the same with this article? Cheers, Face 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Allen3 talk 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redvers. I'm not sure I follow the reasons for the sentence you have added. You're experienced on Wiki and know it better than me, so I understand you'd have a valid reason - it's just that I can't quite see it. Are you saying that anons are using this template instead of the correct speedy template, and that the anons get frustrated when the template is swapped for a speedy one? The way the sentence is worded it sounds like you are saying that unless the anon gives a reason for deletion on the talkpage (rather than the proper Afd discussion page) then the AfDM template will be removed. Why should they not give their views where the debate is taking place? Regards SilkTork * SilkyTalk 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not had chance to come back to this; I will do in next the 48hrs. This comment is to keep MiszaBot away. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Redvers - I got your message. Thanks for the assistance, I was able to re-submit the article in question and now see it in the list. I guess I should have read it a bit better the first time! Thanks again! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:
Eck - a year and a half on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and they add a far harder category! Well, if we're going to cite JzG, we might as well be in for a penny as a pound and AfD the lot and take the consequences. Do we tell the user in advance that this is going to happen (to un-bite him/her), or do we just do it, or do we start a "centralised discussion" to go round in circles forever? So many wrong choices... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:PBS Maltese broadcaster logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How funny! "Most of our vandals start with a single edit" How true! Everyone has to start sometime if they do start. Reporting it was worth it if only to get a surprise joke back! Archtransit 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, would have messaged you but didn't know if you were about. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting that! Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Doctor Who is written and produced by a gay guy, historically not an unusual position. It has gay and straight fans. It has gay and straight characters. And at no point has it ever been a children's show anyway, although that doesn't really matter either way - there are such things as gay kids (I was one, born gay, grew up gay, still gay). Ho hum. I suppose you can't legislate against ignorance. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to delete the article on Israel Segal under A1, A3 and A7. In my opinion, the article had sufficient context to make sense of it, sufficient content to stand as a stub and enough assertion of notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals to mandate wider review. WP:CSD specifies that if A7 is controversial, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Controversy should be evident, I would think, when another editor removes the speedy tag. Under non-criteria, WP:CSD also specifies that speedy is not for "Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply." Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations explains that A3 is for "no content whatsoever", whereas this article indicated a name, a profession and offered a link to substantiate the claim. There are 21,900 google hits for the name "Israel Segal". Many of these are about other individuals, but he is the subject assuredly of some—"Israel Segal" + journalist hits 525. His death is covered here (the source listed in the article), here he speaks to the BBC, his position as a "long-time Israeli news commentor" is referenced here, and in this obituary he is described as "one of Israel's leading journalists and authors". I'm requesting that you restore the article so that it may be duly expanded. -- Moonriddengirl 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel Segal was a renowned Israeli journalist and author.
Sources
Discussion is now at User talk:Moonriddengirl, due to an egregious misleading edit summary in the deletion log. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:
Eck - a year and a half on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and they add a far harder category! Well, if we're going to cite JzG, we might as well be in for a penny as a pound and AfD the lot and take the consequences. Do we tell the user in advance that this is going to happen (to un-bite him/her), or do we just do it, or do we start a "centralised discussion" to go round in circles forever? So many wrong choices... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:PBS Maltese broadcaster logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How funny! "Most of our vandals start with a single edit" How true! Everyone has to start sometime if they do start. Reporting it was worth it if only to get a surprise joke back! Archtransit 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, would have messaged you but didn't know if you were about. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting that! Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Doctor Who is written and produced by a gay guy, historically not an unusual position. It has gay and straight fans. It has gay and straight characters. And at no point has it ever been a children's show anyway, although that doesn't really matter either way - there are such things as gay kids (I was one, born gay, grew up gay, still gay). Ho hum. I suppose you can't legislate against ignorance. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to delete the article on Israel Segal under A1, A3 and A7. In my opinion, the article had sufficient context to make sense of it, sufficient content to stand as a stub and enough assertion of notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals to mandate wider review. WP:CSD specifies that if A7 is controversial, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Controversy should be evident, I would think, when another editor removes the speedy tag. Under non-criteria, WP:CSD also specifies that speedy is not for "Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply." Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations explains that A3 is for "no content whatsoever", whereas this article indicated a name, a profession and offered a link to substantiate the claim. There are 21,900 google hits for the name "Israel Segal". Many of these are about other individuals, but he is the subject assuredly of some—"Israel Segal" + journalist hits 525. His death is covered here (the source listed in the article), here he speaks to the BBC, his position as a "long-time Israeli news commentor" is referenced here, and in this obituary he is described as "one of Israel's leading journalists and authors". I'm requesting that you restore the article so that it may be duly expanded. -- Moonriddengirl 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel Segal was a renowned Israeli journalist and author.
Sources
Discussion is now at User talk:Moonriddengirl, due to an egregious misleading edit summary in the deletion log. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Following the breakdown of diplomatic efforts to end the crisis, ambassadors are recalled and heavy artillery begins to roll towards the border... What do you think of this as a possible wording for the nominations? This is a weird one as if the articles are salvageable I would love to see them kept (although neither the assorted personal attacks MW1 is posting about me, nor his stated intent to track down the families of the deceased and ask them to comment, are endearing him or his articles to me).
This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.
This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:
- There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
- Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
- I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up;
- WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.
Do you think this is too pompous, and/or can you think of anything that should be added? I propose to either post them at intervals, or manually move them to different places in the AFD log, to try to discourage block-voting as much as possible. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Redvers, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
|
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:05, 16 October 2007 (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. |
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |||||||||||||
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
Hi. Thanks for your edit to the above article. But do you think that the person is not notable for an article? Google search gives plenty of hits, and many articles by this scholar are available in JSTOR. I believe the tag is not justified. Right now I'm unable to provide detailed description of his scientific contribution, but I included a link to one of his books published by a reputable publisher. We refer to Hewsen in many articles about Transcaucasia, as he is one of the leading experts on the ancient history of the region, and an article about him is useful to give some background about who he is. I'm sure it will be expanded further if it is kept. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Robert H. Hewsen is the author of the first ever historical atlas of Armenia, the first historical atlas for any of the former Soviet republics. [1] He is professor emeritus of History at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. He received his B.A. in history...
I think the point here is not just my addition of the clean-up tag, but the new editor before me who, not knowing the system, tried but failed to AfD it. AGF that they meant well and weren't just some general nutter, I think that notability was what they were looking at. And the subject does meet Wikipedia standards for notability, as you know. But the article is a bit light on this.
So we need a punchy introduction. "Foo is a professor emeritus" isn't notability per se, certainly not enough for the new editor and not quite enough for me (Wikipedia standards aren't clear on this either!). "Foo is the author of this unique work [ref]" is notability, and a good one - and right up-front: just as far as the new editor got(!)
There's a compromise here that will work for you (who knows a lot), me (who knows a little) and the new editor (who knows [not intended as an insult] nothing). Perhaps the existing wording but with the unique bit from the UoC in the second sentence? Or mentioned in the first but picked up upon later? Just a bit of <shudder> journalistic punch to get Prof Hewsen away from the danger zone clearly and without ambiguity?
Any ideas? Your article-writing skills are clearly well above-average, so help me out here! What do you think we could say? :o) ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the barnstar, so nice of you. I’m really flattered that my humble efforts are appreciated. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point in calling my post that you recently deleted, original research. While I did discover many facts in this article, through personal investigation, I have always assumed that many other people had discovered many of these facts long before I did. As one example that I was correct in this assumption, I have recently learned that Chicago elementary Schools teach that Chicago is located at the same latitude as Rome. (Props to Wikipedian Speciate). I don’t know if anyone before me has discovered that no other pair of cities, both of which are at least as populous as these two cities, is so close in latitude. I believe, though, that any source that publishes coordinates for any group of cities, also publishes, by implication, the differences between these coordinates, and comparisons of these differences, and that, for this reason, any source that publishes coordinates of all cities this populous can, be cited as a source for all that I wrote in the article you deleted.
While we may often think that ideas of ours, are original, often these ideas are only new to us. I consider it flattering to me, that you consider my ideas, to be original research, but in this case, I believe that you are incorrect to believe this.
George Pelly-Bosela
gpelly.bosela@gmail.com
Also, you can reread the article you deleted on the Chicago discussion page. GPelly-Bosela 06:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)
Sorry bout that... nat t a n g 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redvers. Thank you for removing the Mew 2 article. It's been there for quite a while. Could you do the same with this article? Cheers, Face 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Allen3 talk 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Redvers. I'm not sure I follow the reasons for the sentence you have added. You're experienced on Wiki and know it better than me, so I understand you'd have a valid reason - it's just that I can't quite see it. Are you saying that anons are using this template instead of the correct speedy template, and that the anons get frustrated when the template is swapped for a speedy one? The way the sentence is worded it sounds like you are saying that unless the anon gives a reason for deletion on the talkpage (rather than the proper Afd discussion page) then the AfDM template will be removed. Why should they not give their views where the debate is taking place? Regards SilkTork * SilkyTalk 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not had chance to come back to this; I will do in next the 48hrs. This comment is to keep MiszaBot away. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Redvers - I got your message. Thanks for the assistance, I was able to re-submit the article in question and now see it in the list. I guess I should have read it a bit better the first time! Thanks again! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:
Eck - a year and a half on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and they add a far harder category! Well, if we're going to cite JzG, we might as well be in for a penny as a pound and AfD the lot and take the consequences. Do we tell the user in advance that this is going to happen (to un-bite him/her), or do we just do it, or do we start a "centralised discussion" to go round in circles forever? So many wrong choices... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:PBS Maltese broadcaster logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How funny! "Most of our vandals start with a single edit" How true! Everyone has to start sometime if they do start. Reporting it was worth it if only to get a surprise joke back! Archtransit 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, would have messaged you but didn't know if you were about. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting that! Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Doctor Who is written and produced by a gay guy, historically not an unusual position. It has gay and straight fans. It has gay and straight characters. And at no point has it ever been a children's show anyway, although that doesn't really matter either way - there are such things as gay kids (I was one, born gay, grew up gay, still gay). Ho hum. I suppose you can't legislate against ignorance. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to delete the article on Israel Segal under A1, A3 and A7. In my opinion, the article had sufficient context to make sense of it, sufficient content to stand as a stub and enough assertion of notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals to mandate wider review. WP:CSD specifies that if A7 is controversial, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Controversy should be evident, I would think, when another editor removes the speedy tag. Under non-criteria, WP:CSD also specifies that speedy is not for "Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply." Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations explains that A3 is for "no content whatsoever", whereas this article indicated a name, a profession and offered a link to substantiate the claim. There are 21,900 google hits for the name "Israel Segal". Many of these are about other individuals, but he is the subject assuredly of some—"Israel Segal" + journalist hits 525. His death is covered here (the source listed in the article), here he speaks to the BBC, his position as a "long-time Israeli news commentor" is referenced here, and in this obituary he is described as "one of Israel's leading journalists and authors". I'm requesting that you restore the article so that it may be duly expanded. -- Moonriddengirl 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel Segal was a renowned Israeli journalist and author.
Sources
Discussion is now at User talk:Moonriddengirl, due to an egregious misleading edit summary in the deletion log. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:
Eck - a year and a half on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and they add a far harder category! Well, if we're going to cite JzG, we might as well be in for a penny as a pound and AfD the lot and take the consequences. Do we tell the user in advance that this is going to happen (to un-bite him/her), or do we just do it, or do we start a "centralised discussion" to go round in circles forever? So many wrong choices... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:PBS Maltese broadcaster logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How funny! "Most of our vandals start with a single edit" How true! Everyone has to start sometime if they do start. Reporting it was worth it if only to get a surprise joke back! Archtransit 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, would have messaged you but didn't know if you were about. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting that! Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Doctor Who is written and produced by a gay guy, historically not an unusual position. It has gay and straight fans. It has gay and straight characters. And at no point has it ever been a children's show anyway, although that doesn't really matter either way - there are such things as gay kids (I was one, born gay, grew up gay, still gay). Ho hum. I suppose you can't legislate against ignorance. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to delete the article on Israel Segal under A1, A3 and A7. In my opinion, the article had sufficient context to make sense of it, sufficient content to stand as a stub and enough assertion of notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals to mandate wider review. WP:CSD specifies that if A7 is controversial, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Controversy should be evident, I would think, when another editor removes the speedy tag. Under non-criteria, WP:CSD also specifies that speedy is not for "Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply." Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations explains that A3 is for "no content whatsoever", whereas this article indicated a name, a profession and offered a link to substantiate the claim. There are 21,900 google hits for the name "Israel Segal". Many of these are about other individuals, but he is the subject assuredly of some—"Israel Segal" + journalist hits 525. His death is covered here (the source listed in the article), here he speaks to the BBC, his position as a "long-time Israeli news commentor" is referenced here, and in this obituary he is described as "one of Israel's leading journalists and authors". I'm requesting that you restore the article so that it may be duly expanded. -- Moonriddengirl 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel Segal was a renowned Israeli journalist and author.
Sources
Discussion is now at User talk:Moonriddengirl, due to an egregious misleading edit summary in the deletion log. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Following the breakdown of diplomatic efforts to end the crisis, ambassadors are recalled and heavy artillery begins to roll towards the border... What do you think of this as a possible wording for the nominations? This is a weird one as if the articles are salvageable I would love to see them kept (although neither the assorted personal attacks MW1 is posting about me, nor his stated intent to track down the families of the deceased and ask them to comment, are endearing him or his articles to me).
This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.
This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:
- There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
- Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
- I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up;
- WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.
Do you think this is too pompous, and/or can you think of anything that should be added? I propose to either post them at intervals, or manually move them to different places in the AFD log, to try to discourage block-voting as much as possible. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Redvers, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
|
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)