![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
You may wish to revisit your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aayat (song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baarish (song) .Votes don't matter, their contents do.See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Breakup Song (Indian song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uska Hi Banana. Winged Blades Godric 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this conversation is appropriate for BN, but I did want to respond to this. I get SoWhy is a great, thoughtful guy, but he's also perceived as an extremist on one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia, and many have the impression he had been using RfA as a way to advocate for his pet issue. That's going to bring enemies out of the woodwork whether or not the perceptions are true. There are several respected admins who don't have the issues either of the last two RfB candidates had that I think would likely sail through. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I agree that SoWhy was indeed an ideal candidate. However the fact that this RfB failed for some reasons should not be discouraging for a new attempt with other candidate. Would you like to share with me the list (on or off wiki), so that we see whether we can make this work out??-- Kostas20142 ( talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this [1] the user already had a final warning for unsourced changes.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this "Fails WP:BASIC by a wide margin. " mean 2 editors? I really think there is an agenda in this deletion that should be weighed in on by more editors. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like that, into the draftspace. When you say everyone else, I only see two deletes. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, much appreciated! I suspect that is how and why these sites emerged.. http://deletionpedia.org/en/Jeff_King_(consultant) -- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
[2] An editor complains that they have been followed by RexxS to an article RexxS hadn't edited before. The advice " go and find an article far, far away from him to edit instead. " is not particularly helpful in that case, and is blaming the one being followed by RexxS to an article for being followed. Closing this as non-actionable was probably the right call, but the additional comment seems to be counter-productive and unlikely to be well-received by the OP. Fram ( talk) 09:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion here because I do not like conducting generalised discussions on third party talk pages. At User talk:SamuelBeGood you said "This is the second unblock request I've seen this week that you have "accepted" without actually lifting it. If you're not going to physically press the "unblock" button, don't accept it but just leave a note on the talk page.". In fact I fully explained my actions in the unblock request as I said "Procedural accept to change your name from 'Encouncil' to 'SamuelBeGood' which I have done. The main unblock appeal, above, will be reviewed by another admin." This makes it clear that I had /not/ accepted the principle unblock request. What happened was that the user submitted two requests, a substantive request and a second request to change the username. I assessed the proposed new name and, finding it acceptable I accepted that request and changed the name. I did not review the other unblock appeal as is clear from the comment I made and the fact that I did not action the substantive appeal. To leave the name change request unactioned would be illogical and more confusing. Consequently, in future instances of double unblock requests I will continue to handle them in this manner. Finally, you will have seen that when a single, combined request is made then I simply leave a talkpage note. HTH. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, by any chance could you start the AN discussion regarding BlackAmerican's SO or at the very least get the ball rolling faster? In no scenario at this point am I supportive of an unblock, especially after his latest request/rant and denial, but I just want this addressed properly, if anything, for my own peace of mind. I tried earnestly to help CA and I hope he takes that into account for I do not see an outcome that ends in him editing again -- at least legitimately. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 07:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
They've been hatted, but the PAs by a registered editor to IP editors won't go away. We hope ( talk) 20:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like SkyWarrior has stepped up to the mantle and re-hatted it. As for the ANI thread, what a petit dejunner de chien. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333!! I am a relatively new Wiki writer, and just learning the rules. Last week you voted to KEEP an article I worked really hard on regarding TV personality Dustin Cumming. I thanked you publicly and want to take this opportunity to say "thank you" again! Your vote really inspired me. I would like to close the deletion discussion and keep the page, as you voted to do. I don't know how to proceed. There has been no further activity. What is the proper way to remove the notice that says that its being considered for deletion? Can you kindly advise? How do I/we close the deletion discussion for this page. The article is sourced by four Los Angeles times articles and the page is about a person has been cast on many notable (national) TV shows. Can we remove the notice indicating the page is being considered for deletion? Would GREATLY APPRECIATE your advice on the proper next steps 18:41, 3 August 2017 Mbarywiki ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Raising a glass in your honor. Thank you. I am a newbie, I readily admit it, but I am honored to learn from people with more experience. Mbarywiki ( talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, was just checking back to find a date that I knew was present on an old page "Green Hat (software company)" and found that it has been deleted, searching the archives I found that this was performed by yourself. I was hoping that you could explain the rational behind the deletion (it states advertising) as there are various others that have the same style of content and as the company no longer exists (having been acquired) it doesn't have products for sale which I would have thought was the basis for advertising. As comparison, "Itko" "SoapUI" "Parasoft" and many more could be considered in the same manner.
Kind regards, 94.5.36.127 ( talk) 08:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) John
Great job, you humourous chum. I've got an idea for the next issue - how about Yodapedia?
You've made a good job of slimming down the cultural references; well done! One more improvement would be to delete the snippet about Waterloo Sunset. I can give several good reasons. It's unreferenced (unless you count the link). It does not, like many of the surviving works mentioned, contribute to knowledge of the building, and is therefore simply anecdotal. Any mention of a song acts as a magnet for further trivia. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably the change of title was to try (unsuccessfully) to hide the fact that it's such a deliberate rip-off of Beatles style! But what you say of the other things you mean to follow up only underlines that there may be other interesting facts about the song itself but that it has nothing to add to the Waterloo article's subject, which is so often the case with this kind of item. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 08:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
R3s, before I forget, wanted to say a big thanks for the first GA review you did for Revolver, back in 2015 or thereabouts. I confess I didn't actually check with it when working up the article for GA2 (simply because I knew, even two years ago, where the article needed to be). But it was good just recently to read through your comments again and think (again), Yes … yes … agree … Absolutely – YES! Back when you did the review, I flagged it in my mind as a rare, dedicated job where – and I think this is an unfortunate downside of the GA Cup – a reviewer actually offers something for the benefit of all editors and the encyclopaedia as a whole, rather than simply going through the motions. The alternative, from what I've seen, is that some articles make GA and really shouldn't do, in which case the nominating editor, who might achieve a series of "fluke" passes, learns nothing about what constitutes a Good Article. Either that or a nomination fails, with the reviewer having given nothing of themselves as far as helping improve the article, or at least willing it to pass. (I had a rare example of that – astounding result, imo, but at least I can put it down to an unusually unimaginative editor doing their usual. Sour grapes? Non, non, non …) Anyway, thanks again. I didn't want you to think that the hard work had gone unnoticed. JG66 ( talk) 06:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Another editor took out the little flags next to our names in the signpost. Read the edit history. I wanted explain and let him know that I didn't want to be mistaken for a humourous Brit. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You closed the AFD on WP:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soldier as no consensus. I'd like to ask you to reconsider it. Another editor supported deletion, nobody opposed it. It's not uncommon at all for an article that few people care about (because it's not notable) to get deleted with a nom and a single vote. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I am inspired to continue to work hard and improve. Wikipedia is so different than writing an article. The vetting process was an invaluable experience because I learned a lot. I will absolutely contribute much more, and I hope to inspire and encourage my students do the same with classroom assignments. Wikipedia is a valuable resource of information. I am honored to contribute to such an important community. Its important to learn something new every day. With much gratitude and thanks! Mbarywiki (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarywiki ( talk) 21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Mbarywiki ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
The Paul Dacre Memorial Doorstepping Prize |
Beware.... Harold is still watching. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |
If you can find my Facebook page (you'll know it's me, lots of posts having a go at the Daily Mail / Trump / May) there is a nice video where a workmate bought every copy of the Mail from the local newsagent the day before the last election, took them to his allotment, and videoed him setting fire to the whole lot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a big mistake in allowing that. See this and this; consensus has been established over and over again to exclude links to that site, and I don't see the benefit to our wiki in having another discussion when the user that added the link was pointed to those polices before, especially when he is on the board of directors for the RationalMedia Foundation and therefore has financial interest in directing people to his site (visitors = potential donations). Linking to competing non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis does not help our articles at all. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the actual filters listed? Most, if not all, of them were basically "new user reverting a lot of people", which happened because he's an IP reverting vandalism (sorry if the IP is female, I'm not sure) or "repeated attempts to vandalize" which clearly isn't true, if you look at the diffs it's pretty obvious the IP did nothing wrong and was only trying to revert vandalism, I think the filter might have gone on the fritz. (apologies for run on sentence) Please unblock the IP. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{ec} Hi Ritchie. Do you want to take another look at the block on User:99.53.112.186? This user tends to trip the filter and end up at TB2 quite a lot, but that is more a fault with the filters and not in itself blockable. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
uw-block}}
on my talk page as a hilariously funny jape, and certainly on the talk pages of others in order to stir up trouble. Even a short message like "will you quit screwing around, if you write "poop" on that page again you'll probably get blocked" would do. Having had a quick look, there seems to be about 4-5 different filters that the IP is jamming on. I've left a note at their talk page and hopefully I'll get a response from them.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Hallo Ritchie333, When you made this edit saying that the editor hadn't edited within 24 hours, had you checked the recent history of his creation Revolution Media? It was CSD'd again at 05:15, 8 August 2017 (this morning), after he had repeatedly deleted the CSD template from it, within last 24 hrs I'm virtually certain though can't check as a non-admin. Pam D 18:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I removed the five DM sources from Alex_Reid_(fighter) and replaced with with other sources largely supporting the text in the article. One down, 1833 to go :)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I appreciate your weighing in on the edit-warring by the anon IP at this report. After engaging in some talk page discussion, the user has again begun edit-warring, with these four reverts in less than 24 hours, all while I was attempting to continue to engage him on the article talk page:
[6] Undid my revision that conformed article info to what was in the source I added
[7] Undid revision 794611328 by XLinkBot (Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot)
[8] re-reverted as I was explaining why Youtube vids aren't a reliable secondary source
[9] re-reverted again during same discussion
I have not reverted his latest change. I think that these actions, combined with his disruptive edits on the Jared Taylor page, and his abusive language on the Talk:Jared Taylor page, shows that this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia. Should I file another 3RR report at this time? Thanks. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Literally...the WP clock that's used with my sig. It appears to be a 24 hr. clock but I have no clue as to what time it's on. For example, it's 2:40pm where I am right now. I will sign and see if the clock agrees. Atsme 📞 📧 19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
"It's About Time"
|
If you lose track of time, and don't know the hour, |
@ Atsme: That's nothing, I just fixed the office coffee machine. It's bloody complicated, it boots up an operating system when you switch it on, and if you forget to attach the nozzle in the right place (oo-er) it goes bezerk. Jeez, what was wrong with the good old fashioned kettle? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
...needing serious advice. When any GF editor comes across an article that is clearly an attack page that's full of SYNTH and derogatory claims against a BLP that are sourced to questionable and/or unreliable sources, what are the appropriate steps to take? Atsme 📞 📧 19:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-attack}}
at the top of the article and blank the text.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Euston railway station 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
Sportsguy17 --
Sportsguy17 (
talk)
20:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
— Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Asahi Super Dry |
For good ol' humour in times of need.
Thank you! Alex Shih Talk 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Seconded, although you forgot: "The Sea of Japan article should be renamed", "Dear President Trump..." and "Hi! Nice to meet your acquaintance. We am produce many high quality LED, please see catalogue..." Yunshui 雲 水 14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing who owns what is a vital part of a free and open society. For you to instead view such disclosures as compromising neutrality, is absurd; and made all the more ridiculous by the fact it has been orchestrated on Wikipedia of all mediums - the supposed bastion of knowledge for knowledge sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Austrums ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again about this, but the anon IP has resorted to edit warring again on the Terrell Owens page. I pointed out to him on talk that he did not have consensus to make his changes, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Not arguing the close - given the comments of participants no other way you could close it, but looks to me like there are sufficient sources in Hindi and Tamil, and this is a significant move with notable actors. Do you have an archived copy of the article? In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Euston railway station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Euston railway station 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
Sportsguy17 --
Sportsguy17 (
talk)
14:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on your previous edit here: special:diff/792612171, I am not sure if this one is encyclopaedic: special:diff/795209582. Would you please take a look at it?
Actually, I was here to ask for your help. Would you help me with this draft article please? I am having sort of writers block since past few days. If you can't help, would you please refer someone who could help? Thanks a lot in advance. Kindly ping me when replying. Best, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Please! Since it apparently has already been deleted. I received notification of your dispute/delete process as I was just leaving the country and have been very busy over the last several days since my return. There has been no time to deal with this. I would prefer to think that the effort, whether wiki-worthy or not, will not have to be recreated for those who may be interested. This was simply an article informative to those either in the broadcasting/entertainment field as a business or hobby by a station that has developed a successful template for operation. As I have nothing to gain, it matters nothing to me as to whether it is included here or not. I simply need the content returned to a space where I can access it and post elsewhere. Thank you. Rfreeman779 ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just shifted the Mail out of about 10 articles. Will bear your comments in mind and nibble away at others. HTH. - Sitush ( talk) 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie,
I need your advice. After participating in Picaboo's AfD I decided to improve the article, as after a search for sources, I felt that it met our notability guidelines. It closed as no-consensus and an editor used that as a reason to add a notability tag (see here). According to the "when to use" section of the template "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject". Since the no-consensus does not seem to be a valid reason by itself, I contacted the editor in three occasions (See here: [10], [11] and [12]) but I only got a very short answer to my first request (See here) and no answer to the other two. Since I was involved in improving the article and the editor that placed the tag did not agree to remove it, its probably not a good idea for me to do so myself... I would really appreciate your advice on what to do in this cases. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 11:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Euston railway station at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Elisa.rolle (
talk)
22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Brighton Palace Pier 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Brighton Palace Pier 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:Brighton Palace Pier for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Hyde Park, London 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
Dr. Blofeld --
Dr. Blofeld (
talk)
12:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Cannon Street station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cannon Street station 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
06:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Charing Cross railway station 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:20, 16 August 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
You may wish to revisit your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aayat (song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baarish (song) .Votes don't matter, their contents do.See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Breakup Song (Indian song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uska Hi Banana. Winged Blades Godric 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this conversation is appropriate for BN, but I did want to respond to this. I get SoWhy is a great, thoughtful guy, but he's also perceived as an extremist on one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia, and many have the impression he had been using RfA as a way to advocate for his pet issue. That's going to bring enemies out of the woodwork whether or not the perceptions are true. There are several respected admins who don't have the issues either of the last two RfB candidates had that I think would likely sail through. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I agree that SoWhy was indeed an ideal candidate. However the fact that this RfB failed for some reasons should not be discouraging for a new attempt with other candidate. Would you like to share with me the list (on or off wiki), so that we see whether we can make this work out??-- Kostas20142 ( talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this [1] the user already had a final warning for unsourced changes.-- Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this "Fails WP:BASIC by a wide margin. " mean 2 editors? I really think there is an agenda in this deletion that should be weighed in on by more editors. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like that, into the draftspace. When you say everyone else, I only see two deletes. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 19:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, much appreciated! I suspect that is how and why these sites emerged.. http://deletionpedia.org/en/Jeff_King_(consultant) -- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
[2] An editor complains that they have been followed by RexxS to an article RexxS hadn't edited before. The advice " go and find an article far, far away from him to edit instead. " is not particularly helpful in that case, and is blaming the one being followed by RexxS to an article for being followed. Closing this as non-actionable was probably the right call, but the additional comment seems to be counter-productive and unlikely to be well-received by the OP. Fram ( talk) 09:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion here because I do not like conducting generalised discussions on third party talk pages. At User talk:SamuelBeGood you said "This is the second unblock request I've seen this week that you have "accepted" without actually lifting it. If you're not going to physically press the "unblock" button, don't accept it but just leave a note on the talk page.". In fact I fully explained my actions in the unblock request as I said "Procedural accept to change your name from 'Encouncil' to 'SamuelBeGood' which I have done. The main unblock appeal, above, will be reviewed by another admin." This makes it clear that I had /not/ accepted the principle unblock request. What happened was that the user submitted two requests, a substantive request and a second request to change the username. I assessed the proposed new name and, finding it acceptable I accepted that request and changed the name. I did not review the other unblock appeal as is clear from the comment I made and the fact that I did not action the substantive appeal. To leave the name change request unactioned would be illogical and more confusing. Consequently, in future instances of double unblock requests I will continue to handle them in this manner. Finally, you will have seen that when a single, combined request is made then I simply leave a talkpage note. HTH. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, by any chance could you start the AN discussion regarding BlackAmerican's SO or at the very least get the ball rolling faster? In no scenario at this point am I supportive of an unblock, especially after his latest request/rant and denial, but I just want this addressed properly, if anything, for my own peace of mind. I tried earnestly to help CA and I hope he takes that into account for I do not see an outcome that ends in him editing again -- at least legitimately. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 07:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
They've been hatted, but the PAs by a registered editor to IP editors won't go away. We hope ( talk) 20:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like SkyWarrior has stepped up to the mantle and re-hatted it. As for the ANI thread, what a petit dejunner de chien. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333!! I am a relatively new Wiki writer, and just learning the rules. Last week you voted to KEEP an article I worked really hard on regarding TV personality Dustin Cumming. I thanked you publicly and want to take this opportunity to say "thank you" again! Your vote really inspired me. I would like to close the deletion discussion and keep the page, as you voted to do. I don't know how to proceed. There has been no further activity. What is the proper way to remove the notice that says that its being considered for deletion? Can you kindly advise? How do I/we close the deletion discussion for this page. The article is sourced by four Los Angeles times articles and the page is about a person has been cast on many notable (national) TV shows. Can we remove the notice indicating the page is being considered for deletion? Would GREATLY APPRECIATE your advice on the proper next steps 18:41, 3 August 2017 Mbarywiki ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Raising a glass in your honor. Thank you. I am a newbie, I readily admit it, but I am honored to learn from people with more experience. Mbarywiki ( talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, was just checking back to find a date that I knew was present on an old page "Green Hat (software company)" and found that it has been deleted, searching the archives I found that this was performed by yourself. I was hoping that you could explain the rational behind the deletion (it states advertising) as there are various others that have the same style of content and as the company no longer exists (having been acquired) it doesn't have products for sale which I would have thought was the basis for advertising. As comparison, "Itko" "SoapUI" "Parasoft" and many more could be considered in the same manner.
Kind regards, 94.5.36.127 ( talk) 08:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) John
Great job, you humourous chum. I've got an idea for the next issue - how about Yodapedia?
You've made a good job of slimming down the cultural references; well done! One more improvement would be to delete the snippet about Waterloo Sunset. I can give several good reasons. It's unreferenced (unless you count the link). It does not, like many of the surviving works mentioned, contribute to knowledge of the building, and is therefore simply anecdotal. Any mention of a song acts as a magnet for further trivia. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably the change of title was to try (unsuccessfully) to hide the fact that it's such a deliberate rip-off of Beatles style! But what you say of the other things you mean to follow up only underlines that there may be other interesting facts about the song itself but that it has nothing to add to the Waterloo article's subject, which is so often the case with this kind of item. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 08:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
R3s, before I forget, wanted to say a big thanks for the first GA review you did for Revolver, back in 2015 or thereabouts. I confess I didn't actually check with it when working up the article for GA2 (simply because I knew, even two years ago, where the article needed to be). But it was good just recently to read through your comments again and think (again), Yes … yes … agree … Absolutely – YES! Back when you did the review, I flagged it in my mind as a rare, dedicated job where – and I think this is an unfortunate downside of the GA Cup – a reviewer actually offers something for the benefit of all editors and the encyclopaedia as a whole, rather than simply going through the motions. The alternative, from what I've seen, is that some articles make GA and really shouldn't do, in which case the nominating editor, who might achieve a series of "fluke" passes, learns nothing about what constitutes a Good Article. Either that or a nomination fails, with the reviewer having given nothing of themselves as far as helping improve the article, or at least willing it to pass. (I had a rare example of that – astounding result, imo, but at least I can put it down to an unusually unimaginative editor doing their usual. Sour grapes? Non, non, non …) Anyway, thanks again. I didn't want you to think that the hard work had gone unnoticed. JG66 ( talk) 06:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Another editor took out the little flags next to our names in the signpost. Read the edit history. I wanted explain and let him know that I didn't want to be mistaken for a humourous Brit. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You closed the AFD on WP:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soldier as no consensus. I'd like to ask you to reconsider it. Another editor supported deletion, nobody opposed it. It's not uncommon at all for an article that few people care about (because it's not notable) to get deleted with a nom and a single vote. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I am inspired to continue to work hard and improve. Wikipedia is so different than writing an article. The vetting process was an invaluable experience because I learned a lot. I will absolutely contribute much more, and I hope to inspire and encourage my students do the same with classroom assignments. Wikipedia is a valuable resource of information. I am honored to contribute to such an important community. Its important to learn something new every day. With much gratitude and thanks! Mbarywiki (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarywiki ( talk) 21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Mbarywiki ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
The Paul Dacre Memorial Doorstepping Prize |
Beware.... Harold is still watching. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |
If you can find my Facebook page (you'll know it's me, lots of posts having a go at the Daily Mail / Trump / May) there is a nice video where a workmate bought every copy of the Mail from the local newsagent the day before the last election, took them to his allotment, and videoed him setting fire to the whole lot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a big mistake in allowing that. See this and this; consensus has been established over and over again to exclude links to that site, and I don't see the benefit to our wiki in having another discussion when the user that added the link was pointed to those polices before, especially when he is on the board of directors for the RationalMedia Foundation and therefore has financial interest in directing people to his site (visitors = potential donations). Linking to competing non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis does not help our articles at all. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the actual filters listed? Most, if not all, of them were basically "new user reverting a lot of people", which happened because he's an IP reverting vandalism (sorry if the IP is female, I'm not sure) or "repeated attempts to vandalize" which clearly isn't true, if you look at the diffs it's pretty obvious the IP did nothing wrong and was only trying to revert vandalism, I think the filter might have gone on the fritz. (apologies for run on sentence) Please unblock the IP. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{ec} Hi Ritchie. Do you want to take another look at the block on User:99.53.112.186? This user tends to trip the filter and end up at TB2 quite a lot, but that is more a fault with the filters and not in itself blockable. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
uw-block}}
on my talk page as a hilariously funny jape, and certainly on the talk pages of others in order to stir up trouble. Even a short message like "will you quit screwing around, if you write "poop" on that page again you'll probably get blocked" would do. Having had a quick look, there seems to be about 4-5 different filters that the IP is jamming on. I've left a note at their talk page and hopefully I'll get a response from them.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Hallo Ritchie333, When you made this edit saying that the editor hadn't edited within 24 hours, had you checked the recent history of his creation Revolution Media? It was CSD'd again at 05:15, 8 August 2017 (this morning), after he had repeatedly deleted the CSD template from it, within last 24 hrs I'm virtually certain though can't check as a non-admin. Pam D 18:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I removed the five DM sources from Alex_Reid_(fighter) and replaced with with other sources largely supporting the text in the article. One down, 1833 to go :)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I appreciate your weighing in on the edit-warring by the anon IP at this report. After engaging in some talk page discussion, the user has again begun edit-warring, with these four reverts in less than 24 hours, all while I was attempting to continue to engage him on the article talk page:
[6] Undid my revision that conformed article info to what was in the source I added
[7] Undid revision 794611328 by XLinkBot (Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot)
[8] re-reverted as I was explaining why Youtube vids aren't a reliable secondary source
[9] re-reverted again during same discussion
I have not reverted his latest change. I think that these actions, combined with his disruptive edits on the Jared Taylor page, and his abusive language on the Talk:Jared Taylor page, shows that this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia. Should I file another 3RR report at this time? Thanks. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Literally...the WP clock that's used with my sig. It appears to be a 24 hr. clock but I have no clue as to what time it's on. For example, it's 2:40pm where I am right now. I will sign and see if the clock agrees. Atsme 📞 📧 19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
"It's About Time"
|
If you lose track of time, and don't know the hour, |
@ Atsme: That's nothing, I just fixed the office coffee machine. It's bloody complicated, it boots up an operating system when you switch it on, and if you forget to attach the nozzle in the right place (oo-er) it goes bezerk. Jeez, what was wrong with the good old fashioned kettle? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
...needing serious advice. When any GF editor comes across an article that is clearly an attack page that's full of SYNTH and derogatory claims against a BLP that are sourced to questionable and/or unreliable sources, what are the appropriate steps to take? Atsme 📞 📧 19:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-attack}}
at the top of the article and blank the text.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Euston railway station 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
Sportsguy17 --
Sportsguy17 (
talk)
20:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
— Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Asahi Super Dry |
For good ol' humour in times of need.
Thank you! Alex Shih Talk 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
Seconded, although you forgot: "The Sea of Japan article should be renamed", "Dear President Trump..." and "Hi! Nice to meet your acquaintance. We am produce many high quality LED, please see catalogue..." Yunshui 雲 水 14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing who owns what is a vital part of a free and open society. For you to instead view such disclosures as compromising neutrality, is absurd; and made all the more ridiculous by the fact it has been orchestrated on Wikipedia of all mediums - the supposed bastion of knowledge for knowledge sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Austrums ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again about this, but the anon IP has resorted to edit warring again on the Terrell Owens page. I pointed out to him on talk that he did not have consensus to make his changes, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Not arguing the close - given the comments of participants no other way you could close it, but looks to me like there are sufficient sources in Hindi and Tamil, and this is a significant move with notable actors. Do you have an archived copy of the article? In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Euston railway station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Euston railway station 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
Sportsguy17 --
Sportsguy17 (
talk)
14:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on your previous edit here: special:diff/792612171, I am not sure if this one is encyclopaedic: special:diff/795209582. Would you please take a look at it?
Actually, I was here to ask for your help. Would you help me with this draft article please? I am having sort of writers block since past few days. If you can't help, would you please refer someone who could help? Thanks a lot in advance. Kindly ping me when replying. Best, —usernamekiran (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Please! Since it apparently has already been deleted. I received notification of your dispute/delete process as I was just leaving the country and have been very busy over the last several days since my return. There has been no time to deal with this. I would prefer to think that the effort, whether wiki-worthy or not, will not have to be recreated for those who may be interested. This was simply an article informative to those either in the broadcasting/entertainment field as a business or hobby by a station that has developed a successful template for operation. As I have nothing to gain, it matters nothing to me as to whether it is included here or not. I simply need the content returned to a space where I can access it and post elsewhere. Thank you. Rfreeman779 ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just shifted the Mail out of about 10 articles. Will bear your comments in mind and nibble away at others. HTH. - Sitush ( talk) 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie,
I need your advice. After participating in Picaboo's AfD I decided to improve the article, as after a search for sources, I felt that it met our notability guidelines. It closed as no-consensus and an editor used that as a reason to add a notability tag (see here). According to the "when to use" section of the template "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject". Since the no-consensus does not seem to be a valid reason by itself, I contacted the editor in three occasions (See here: [10], [11] and [12]) but I only got a very short answer to my first request (See here) and no answer to the other two. Since I was involved in improving the article and the editor that placed the tag did not agree to remove it, its probably not a good idea for me to do so myself... I would really appreciate your advice on what to do in this cases. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 11:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Euston railway station at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Elisa.rolle (
talk)
22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Brighton Palace Pier 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Brighton Palace Pier 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:Brighton Palace Pier for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Hyde Park, London 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
Dr. Blofeld --
Dr. Blofeld (
talk)
12:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The article
Cannon Street station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cannon Street station 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
06:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Charing Cross railway station 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
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)