![]() | 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. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
Martinevans123
(Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...
... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Hoping that Christmas may bless you with
peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true
star...
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
![]() |
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, Ritchie333! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi how are you ?. I notice you have put a 48 hour ban on Gekhoor for editing above page. Can we get a full ban if he keeps it up he has been doing this for months now ?. Regards 31.200.165.180 ( talk) 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
They are not confused at all. The person has only ever made edits on van gerwens page and nothing else. Can we keep an eye on them ?. If they continue will they be blocked ?. 178.167.145.149 ( talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Gekhoor edited van gerwen's page again can you block again please ?
92.251.170.126 (
talk)
14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi I am looking for a permanent block on our friend he has removed the same content front van gerwen's page again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.170.126 ( talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The person has been repeatly told to leave the page alone 92.251.135.94 ( talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Why was Pink Guy speedily deleted and salted when it clearly passes Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two? The performer has a album which charted at number 76 on the Billboard 200 chart. [ [1]] A deletion discussed back four months ago when the performer did not pass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two, should never have been taken into consideration as the circumstances have changed considerably, infact Filthy Frank and Pink Guy should be unsalted and redirected to the George Miller (entertainer) article as the other two are characters played in an online series.Either way it should have went to a AFD if anything not speedied. Mind you i don't have any skin in this game but that's how i interpret music bio and it would be good to clean up this mess finally. GuzzyG ( talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Although thought by many as a bit of a Cat-Stevens-who-never-really-escaped-the-60s, it seems Peter Sarstedt was still doing good work for many years. This 2013 video, with one of his last pieces, now seems particularly poignant: [3] (cinematography by Chris Connell, supervised by Peter Biziou). Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Filthy Frank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 removed 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. Wikishovel ( talk) 03:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gekhoor is back under a new name henk Gekhoor and is editing van gerwen's page again can you block again please? Regards 178.167.185.89 ( talk) 16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi you declined my A7 for the above company and I wondered exactly why. As I said on the talk page the sources are about the People's Archive of Rural India which is notable and only mention in passing the trust that owns it. There is nothing in the article that suggests the company is important or significant above and beyond it being the owner of the archive and as notability is not inherited I don't really understand why this company passes the A7. There was one line in the article that says "CounterMedia Trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India. It was established by veteran Indian journalist P. Sainath". The mention of the trust in the sources are
And that is all nothing about the importance of the trust. There must be something I'm missing about the A7 for companies; From what I read about the A7 speedy delete is to ask is there a "Credible claim of significance" which is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:
a) is this reasonably plausible? b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?
You suggest that I ask for a merge but I cannot see how to merge 1 line that says that the trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India when this information is already on the page in the info box. The author of the article has just added 5 more sources three of which do not mention the trust at all, and 2 which say
Could you please help me so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks Domdeparis ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the second change. However, I wish to point out Exemplo347 ( talk · contribs) re-added uncited information to the above mentioned article. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Usercart&action=edit&redlink=1
You recently deleted and article written where you stated the reason for deletion was Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
The article was about Shopping Cart Software not a website. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autanic ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Richie. The Vox Continental is a fabulous instrument, and was influential in pop and retro-pop, absolutely! The Continental (and the Farsisa, too) are square wave tone generators, not the full spectrum sine wave tone generators of Hammond (and Lowery, etc.). The square wave sonic signature is best described as "gloriously cheesy."
Also, and more pertinent to this discussion, the classification for Vox Continental is that of a Combo organ, of which the Vox is the most popular, certainly the most desired in the current retro-pop world for vintage '60s portable organs.
I hope that this clarifies the reasons for my edit.
Cheers, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 ( talk • contribs)
You shouldn't drink "ale". My grandpa died because he drank to much beer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlitterPeace ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the second neutral !vote. I have no idea where the editor is finding those stats ("his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 and 4 G12 taggings"). I quite often do that many in a single day when I do a longer session of reviewing at AFC. Some of the other arguments also seem a bit "off". Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You updated "Trafalgar Square - History" stating 'sources don't agree on that, try a balance'.
However, I think the the original source was wrongly cited ...
"Among the findings, dating from approximately 40,000 years ago, were the remains of cave lion, rhinoceros, straight-tusked elephant and hippopotamus. (Franks, 1960)"
In the article it cites, Franks doesn't say it was 40,000 years ago, but does refer you to Sutcliffe for further reading. Upon further research into Sutcliffe, I found in various instances that he says it was 120,000 years ago.
I therefore think that changing the source from Franks to Sutcliffe, and changing to "120,000 years" is appropriate.
(Additionally, the wikipedia article for the straight-tusked elephant says it became extinct in Britain about 115,000 years ago - therefore "40,000 years ago" is unlikely)
(This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I hope I've done things correctly. If I am right, would you please remove your edit?)
Simonxyzoo ( talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333,
You helped me 3 years ago when I started with Wikipedia, and thank you.
I'm asking you, today, to help me understand what I may do here per a certain concept that seems to have no place on Wikipedia: sex identity. My first thought would be to create a page for sex identity, but the concept seems to be unwelcome at Wikipedia. Terms about sex and gender are being conflated, especially where identity is involved, even on pages where they're to be distinct:
Sex and Gender pages try to make their respective meanings clear, but Sex and gender distinction, which should use the concepts distinctly, doesn't make them clear, very well, and (IMHO) expresses bias by the 2nd sentence where it (a) excludes transsexualism and (b) an attempt to insert chromosomes into the concept of physical sex within this page was undone;
Gender identity says it's "...one person's experience of one's own gender," but Sexual identity does not say anything like "...one person's experience of one's own sex." It says, instead, that it's about "...how one thinks of oneself [per orientation]," who one is attracted to.
...on and on.
There are determined people who want to make trans issues about gender, conflate sex and gender, and downplay genitalia in transition, where there are fewer (though still real) people who want to be able to address that and make distinctions, not just as an addendum to a sentence that some disagree.
It seems to me that there should be at least one article in Wikipedia, somewhere, where the differences between sex and gender could be clarified without conflation and that sex identity is a person's identity of physical sex and gender is a person's identity of their own gender, where sex and gender are not the same thing.
There is a controversy, here, between ideologies, but when I've seen that made clear at times in the past (over years), I've seen the distinctions erode and morph into a dominant view, the loudest voice needling at concepts until they're changed.
I realize Wikipedia is driven by zeitgeists, prevailing ideas, but widely supported ideas should not prevent also the sharing of less widely supported ideas.
Best
Almhath ( talk) 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)almhath
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Live and Dangerous you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sparklism --
Sparklism (
talk)
11:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie333. I noticed you declined the speedy on the above referenced article and said that there are sources. There are sources in the article, I am aware however those sources don't support any credible claim of notability and I'd argue that the article itself doesn't really make any claim of notability or significance - credible or otherwise. I also searched the first time (before it was deleted earlier today) and found exactly zero results on this subject that could be considered reliable. If there are sources that are not in the article that support some notability, would you please add them? I also am confused as to why an A7 would be declined under the guise of "having sources" when the criteria is claim of notability... Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Ritchie333 not to bring up an old topic but I am still confused as to my previous question and now also the speedy decline for
Daniel A. Norman. I think it can be argued that a vague claim of notability is made and the A7 itself isn't the issue (for me) but the decline reason "has sources". What does this mean in terms of an A7 decline? I didn't think that sources were the criteria for tagging A7 so much as a claim of significance or notability? In this case, I'd argue that the sources are pretty irrelevant to the subject since only two mention him (in passing) and the other 2 make no mention or reference of the individual. Thanks! After reading a comment from another user above explaining, I think I have a better understanding, though I really don't believe it applies in this case since the "claim" in the Norman article is vague, if it is considered a claim at all. It seems there are several editors confused as to the wording of "has sources" as a decline, so can I ask in the future for A7 declines you expound a bit on that? Thanks! :)
Chrissymad ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I was writing regarding the recently deleted article of South African recording artist Ben Sharpa. I did not create the original article, but feel as though Ben Sharpa is well worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. He is an award winning recording artist who has toured around the World, and has a substantial amount of accolades to his name. I am not sure what was deemed wrong with the original article, but would like to ask permission to rework the original piece and improve the quality of it. I will add a better, well sourced article and give it the attention it deserves. Please let me know if it is possible to restore a draft or whether I can recreate the article from scratch. Regards, ( Subzzee ( talk) 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC))
As our own resident master of the mighty Blackpool Tower Ballroom Wikipedia Wurlitzer you might have a view on some current changes over at Coldplay songs. The Mirror is probably not a good source, but perhaps there is a better one? I trust you're not too yellow to take a peek. The new editor there obviously has a good ear, but few sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
maintenance tags on it.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
17:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Great Marlborough Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You unblocked him two weeks ago, with the same promise. His actions don't show that he wants to "stay out of trouble" and he doesn't want to be unblocked. This pattern has repeated itself way too often. He could have easily stayed out of trouble. He gets another chance to do so when the block has expired. Fram ( talk) 14:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This page was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should now be returned to the dumpster, but if I did it some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Regent Street you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Great Marlborough Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
14:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filthy Frank 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/Filthy Frank (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at
PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Regent Street you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Regent Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
21:20, 5 February 2017 (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. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
Martinevans123
(Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...
... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Hoping that Christmas may bless you with
peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true
star...
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
![]() |
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, Ritchie333! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi how are you ?. I notice you have put a 48 hour ban on Gekhoor for editing above page. Can we get a full ban if he keeps it up he has been doing this for months now ?. Regards 31.200.165.180 ( talk) 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
They are not confused at all. The person has only ever made edits on van gerwens page and nothing else. Can we keep an eye on them ?. If they continue will they be blocked ?. 178.167.145.149 ( talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Gekhoor edited van gerwen's page again can you block again please ?
92.251.170.126 (
talk)
14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi I am looking for a permanent block on our friend he has removed the same content front van gerwen's page again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.170.126 ( talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The person has been repeatly told to leave the page alone 92.251.135.94 ( talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Why was Pink Guy speedily deleted and salted when it clearly passes Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two? The performer has a album which charted at number 76 on the Billboard 200 chart. [ [1]] A deletion discussed back four months ago when the performer did not pass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two, should never have been taken into consideration as the circumstances have changed considerably, infact Filthy Frank and Pink Guy should be unsalted and redirected to the George Miller (entertainer) article as the other two are characters played in an online series.Either way it should have went to a AFD if anything not speedied. Mind you i don't have any skin in this game but that's how i interpret music bio and it would be good to clean up this mess finally. GuzzyG ( talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Although thought by many as a bit of a Cat-Stevens-who-never-really-escaped-the-60s, it seems Peter Sarstedt was still doing good work for many years. This 2013 video, with one of his last pieces, now seems particularly poignant: [3] (cinematography by Chris Connell, supervised by Peter Biziou). Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Filthy Frank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 removed 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. Wikishovel ( talk) 03:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gekhoor is back under a new name henk Gekhoor and is editing van gerwen's page again can you block again please? Regards 178.167.185.89 ( talk) 16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi you declined my A7 for the above company and I wondered exactly why. As I said on the talk page the sources are about the People's Archive of Rural India which is notable and only mention in passing the trust that owns it. There is nothing in the article that suggests the company is important or significant above and beyond it being the owner of the archive and as notability is not inherited I don't really understand why this company passes the A7. There was one line in the article that says "CounterMedia Trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India. It was established by veteran Indian journalist P. Sainath". The mention of the trust in the sources are
And that is all nothing about the importance of the trust. There must be something I'm missing about the A7 for companies; From what I read about the A7 speedy delete is to ask is there a "Credible claim of significance" which is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:
a) is this reasonably plausible? b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?
You suggest that I ask for a merge but I cannot see how to merge 1 line that says that the trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India when this information is already on the page in the info box. The author of the article has just added 5 more sources three of which do not mention the trust at all, and 2 which say
Could you please help me so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks Domdeparis ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the second change. However, I wish to point out Exemplo347 ( talk · contribs) re-added uncited information to the above mentioned article. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Usercart&action=edit&redlink=1
You recently deleted and article written where you stated the reason for deletion was Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
The article was about Shopping Cart Software not a website. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autanic ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Richie. The Vox Continental is a fabulous instrument, and was influential in pop and retro-pop, absolutely! The Continental (and the Farsisa, too) are square wave tone generators, not the full spectrum sine wave tone generators of Hammond (and Lowery, etc.). The square wave sonic signature is best described as "gloriously cheesy."
Also, and more pertinent to this discussion, the classification for Vox Continental is that of a Combo organ, of which the Vox is the most popular, certainly the most desired in the current retro-pop world for vintage '60s portable organs.
I hope that this clarifies the reasons for my edit.
Cheers, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 ( talk • contribs)
You shouldn't drink "ale". My grandpa died because he drank to much beer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlitterPeace ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the second neutral !vote. I have no idea where the editor is finding those stats ("his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 and 4 G12 taggings"). I quite often do that many in a single day when I do a longer session of reviewing at AFC. Some of the other arguments also seem a bit "off". Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You updated "Trafalgar Square - History" stating 'sources don't agree on that, try a balance'.
However, I think the the original source was wrongly cited ...
"Among the findings, dating from approximately 40,000 years ago, were the remains of cave lion, rhinoceros, straight-tusked elephant and hippopotamus. (Franks, 1960)"
In the article it cites, Franks doesn't say it was 40,000 years ago, but does refer you to Sutcliffe for further reading. Upon further research into Sutcliffe, I found in various instances that he says it was 120,000 years ago.
I therefore think that changing the source from Franks to Sutcliffe, and changing to "120,000 years" is appropriate.
(Additionally, the wikipedia article for the straight-tusked elephant says it became extinct in Britain about 115,000 years ago - therefore "40,000 years ago" is unlikely)
(This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I hope I've done things correctly. If I am right, would you please remove your edit?)
Simonxyzoo ( talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333,
You helped me 3 years ago when I started with Wikipedia, and thank you.
I'm asking you, today, to help me understand what I may do here per a certain concept that seems to have no place on Wikipedia: sex identity. My first thought would be to create a page for sex identity, but the concept seems to be unwelcome at Wikipedia. Terms about sex and gender are being conflated, especially where identity is involved, even on pages where they're to be distinct:
Sex and Gender pages try to make their respective meanings clear, but Sex and gender distinction, which should use the concepts distinctly, doesn't make them clear, very well, and (IMHO) expresses bias by the 2nd sentence where it (a) excludes transsexualism and (b) an attempt to insert chromosomes into the concept of physical sex within this page was undone;
Gender identity says it's "...one person's experience of one's own gender," but Sexual identity does not say anything like "...one person's experience of one's own sex." It says, instead, that it's about "...how one thinks of oneself [per orientation]," who one is attracted to.
...on and on.
There are determined people who want to make trans issues about gender, conflate sex and gender, and downplay genitalia in transition, where there are fewer (though still real) people who want to be able to address that and make distinctions, not just as an addendum to a sentence that some disagree.
It seems to me that there should be at least one article in Wikipedia, somewhere, where the differences between sex and gender could be clarified without conflation and that sex identity is a person's identity of physical sex and gender is a person's identity of their own gender, where sex and gender are not the same thing.
There is a controversy, here, between ideologies, but when I've seen that made clear at times in the past (over years), I've seen the distinctions erode and morph into a dominant view, the loudest voice needling at concepts until they're changed.
I realize Wikipedia is driven by zeitgeists, prevailing ideas, but widely supported ideas should not prevent also the sharing of less widely supported ideas.
Best
Almhath ( talk) 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)almhath
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Live and Dangerous you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Sparklism --
Sparklism (
talk)
11:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie333. I noticed you declined the speedy on the above referenced article and said that there are sources. There are sources in the article, I am aware however those sources don't support any credible claim of notability and I'd argue that the article itself doesn't really make any claim of notability or significance - credible or otherwise. I also searched the first time (before it was deleted earlier today) and found exactly zero results on this subject that could be considered reliable. If there are sources that are not in the article that support some notability, would you please add them? I also am confused as to why an A7 would be declined under the guise of "having sources" when the criteria is claim of notability... Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Ritchie333 not to bring up an old topic but I am still confused as to my previous question and now also the speedy decline for
Daniel A. Norman. I think it can be argued that a vague claim of notability is made and the A7 itself isn't the issue (for me) but the decline reason "has sources". What does this mean in terms of an A7 decline? I didn't think that sources were the criteria for tagging A7 so much as a claim of significance or notability? In this case, I'd argue that the sources are pretty irrelevant to the subject since only two mention him (in passing) and the other 2 make no mention or reference of the individual. Thanks! After reading a comment from another user above explaining, I think I have a better understanding, though I really don't believe it applies in this case since the "claim" in the Norman article is vague, if it is considered a claim at all. It seems there are several editors confused as to the wording of "has sources" as a decline, so can I ask in the future for A7 declines you expound a bit on that? Thanks! :)
Chrissymad ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I was writing regarding the recently deleted article of South African recording artist Ben Sharpa. I did not create the original article, but feel as though Ben Sharpa is well worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. He is an award winning recording artist who has toured around the World, and has a substantial amount of accolades to his name. I am not sure what was deemed wrong with the original article, but would like to ask permission to rework the original piece and improve the quality of it. I will add a better, well sourced article and give it the attention it deserves. Please let me know if it is possible to restore a draft or whether I can recreate the article from scratch. Regards, ( Subzzee ( talk) 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC))
As our own resident master of the mighty Blackpool Tower Ballroom Wikipedia Wurlitzer you might have a view on some current changes over at Coldplay songs. The Mirror is probably not a good source, but perhaps there is a better one? I trust you're not too yellow to take a peek. The new editor there obviously has a good ear, but few sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
maintenance tags on it.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
17:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Great Marlborough Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You unblocked him two weeks ago, with the same promise. His actions don't show that he wants to "stay out of trouble" and he doesn't want to be unblocked. This pattern has repeated itself way too often. He could have easily stayed out of trouble. He gets another chance to do so when the block has expired. Fram ( talk) 14:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This page was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should now be returned to the dumpster, but if I did it some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Regent Street you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Great Marlborough Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
14:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filthy Frank 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/Filthy Frank (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at
PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Regent Street you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Regent Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk)
21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)