![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Stalwart 111, vandalism continues to affect the Hilltop Hoods page even though a warning was given. Can we temporarily block the account of 14.2.17.8? Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart111. Thought we might discuss this on your talk page instead of the delete page in case we get too far off base. I thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents held some weight, but you imply it dose not, and I'm in no position to ague w/you, so lets just completely discount it. A direct quote from Notability is not temporary states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Now I quote from your source (which btw I never read before) WP:NOTTEMP "Delete – The subject received coverage just for a day or two, and never again." Do those contradict each other? I've read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT and don't see a solid basis for your position. I'd bet the loss of a 1 million dollar aircraft is notable to the Syrian Air Force, and the loss of a loved one notable to 37 families. I'm very new at this and any help you can give me would be much appreciated. Samf4u ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just double-checked to make sure this was your nomination. As I accidentally told you about three weeks ago for someone else's nomination, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters. The one you supplied is 237. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. We recently increased the number of hooks per set, so it's especially important to keep the length of each hook within the limit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Garden hermit 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!
Constantine
✍ 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Both nations' national soccer teams competed against each other at the 1958 FIFA World Cup with Brazil defeating Sweden at a score of 5–2." LibStar ( talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to start an article about this airplane. Only one was built and it did fly, but the design was a failure. Would such an article be notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Thanks Samf4u ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) 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/The Reformation (band) (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. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello! Stalwart111,
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
|
![]() |
Happy New Year !!! | |
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Hello Stalwart,
I want to let you know that I found a possible sock of User:Darreg, a user that was indef blocked by Mike V per your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. A new user, User:Terriblechristian who joined wikipedia 3 days ago's edit behavior seemed like that of User:Darreg. This [1], diff, this AfD contribution suggested that the user is a WP:DUCK. In fact I'm more convinced with the creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards by the same user. All the article they edited are articles mostly edited by User:Darreg and the subsequent creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, one of user:Darreg area of interest on Wikipedia. In addition, it seems very unlikely for a 3 days old user with about 6 edit count to create a sensible page like 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, if not a sock, blocked or banned user. I just ping Versace, who also left a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 12:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart111,
You and Dsprc have both done large reversions of versions of the Transhumanist Party article on Wikipedia, removing it to become a redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Transhumanist Party. I know you did this because of the discussion last November at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party when the resolution was to change the page to a redirect because of the lack of secondary sources, a decision you were arguing for.
To quote the user Philosopher on that particular discussion thread: "it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether the party will become notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Yet, after over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, you still thought it was appropriate to remove the page and make a redirect to the page for Zoltan Istvan, the party's founder and chairman. It is certainly apparent now—if it wasn't already when the page was created—that the party is a real organization, and not some large orchestrated prank like you seemed to think. You can't say now that it's "too soon" to determine that the party is real unless you didn't look at the changes.
In the deletion discussion, Dsprc said: "It is just Istvan. Is the party registered anywhere? Something like one of these: [1] California (dept state), [2] Florida (dept elections) or New York maybe?? Have they ever gained ballot access anywhere at all? Have they even attempted to do so yet? Who is their Treasurer, Secretary, etc? Or, are there none of these positions because it is just Istvan, and not a political organization at all? Another tell is the lack of a dedicated web resource. Right now, the domain is just a redirect to a subpage on Istvan's site and the domain is assigned to Istvan, and only registered on September 14th (with bogus registration data at that). -- dsprc [talk] 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)" All this information is now on the transhumanist party website at www.transhumanistparty.org (which is functional)—and it is not a redirect to Istvan's own site for that matter. Even so, a political party does not have to be on ballots, acquire votes, or even be registered (which it is) to be notable for Wikipedia. This is not to mention that the complaints voiced by the other users in the Deletion discussion have been settled too, as only more and more news stories have come out in the last three months pertaining to or referencing the US Transhumanist Party and its international affiliates. These references have been added too.
Regardless of all this, Dsprc jumped the gun and removed the page hours after it was restored from the draft with these upgrades. It is questionable whether the page should have been removed in the first place, but the issues that justified that argument in November are no longer applicable to the status of the page how it is now. After being restored a second time by an anonymous user (2600:1003:b11f:127e:0:13:f8ec:af01), it was improved again and then removed similarly a second time by you.
Zoltan Istvan is aware of this issue too, and he is currently writing a series of articles that he will publish on national news media challenging Wikipedia and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are you, Dsprc, Philosopher, Wikipedia executive staff, the organization, and its system's failure to support an article on this political party. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The Free Encyclopedia for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Wikipedia page's will soon too.
All the users I mentioned will be additionally be informed so we can let the community understand this issue. It would be appreciated if you could respond within 24 hours of this message being sent—at least before March 10 UST. I hope you can be of help to the page and to Wikipedia by contributing, not by removing this from the main article namespace.
Thanks, Mechanic1c
I apologize for the COI maintenance tag, as that was a misread on my part. However, the unreferenced maintenance will stay on the page until sources are added to the article. Only after sources are added are you allowed to remove the tags. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|
AWWCBCB award |
Thank you for creating the Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book. I had exactly the same idea when I read the article by Ginger Gorman recently - but you beat me to it! Witty lama 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for correcting that admin that the consensus was clearly userfy. I hate this whole subjective process. It's a very strange world where someone who writes for Wired is "unremarkable." Lizardbones ( talk) 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
The gory details. Will make for an utterly fascinating election next year. Frickeg ( talk) 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Garden hermit, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that some 18th-century estates employed garden hermits to dwell as living ornaments, sometimes dressed like druids, in purpose-built hermitages and follies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Garden hermit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart,
Thank you for your critiques but I have some questions on how to improve my article. I am not a veteran wikipedia user, and I am only doing this because of an assignment for my college history class. Where would be an appropriate place for Golden Age pirate weaponry? Also I know my references are shit but I had to put atleast something up due to a deadline. I plan on gutting it and improving it.
Cheadri6 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Not that it'll ever matter, but for my money if the Country Party elected someone tomorrow and they described themselves as a "Country Party MP", then the party would be notable right then and there (and we would describe them as "Country Party" in the member lists). The only example I can think of since registered parties became a thing is Janet Woollard, but to my knowledge she never described herself as a liberals for forests MP (sometimes as an "independent LFF"). Frickeg ( talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Stalwart 111, vandalism continues to affect the Hilltop Hoods page even though a warning was given. Can we temporarily block the account of 14.2.17.8? Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart111. Thought we might discuss this on your talk page instead of the delete page in case we get too far off base. I thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents held some weight, but you imply it dose not, and I'm in no position to ague w/you, so lets just completely discount it. A direct quote from Notability is not temporary states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Now I quote from your source (which btw I never read before) WP:NOTTEMP "Delete – The subject received coverage just for a day or two, and never again." Do those contradict each other? I've read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT and don't see a solid basis for your position. I'd bet the loss of a 1 million dollar aircraft is notable to the Syrian Air Force, and the loss of a loved one notable to 37 families. I'm very new at this and any help you can give me would be much appreciated. Samf4u ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just double-checked to make sure this was your nomination. As I accidentally told you about three weeks ago for someone else's nomination, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters. The one you supplied is 237. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. We recently increased the number of hooks per set, so it's especially important to keep the length of each hook within the limit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Garden hermit 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!
Constantine
✍ 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Both nations' national soccer teams competed against each other at the 1958 FIFA World Cup with Brazil defeating Sweden at a score of 5–2." LibStar ( talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to start an article about this airplane. Only one was built and it did fly, but the design was a failure. Would such an article be notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Thanks Samf4u ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) 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/The Reformation (band) (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. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello! Stalwart111,
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
|
![]() |
Happy New Year !!! | |
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Hello Stalwart,
I want to let you know that I found a possible sock of User:Darreg, a user that was indef blocked by Mike V per your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. A new user, User:Terriblechristian who joined wikipedia 3 days ago's edit behavior seemed like that of User:Darreg. This [1], diff, this AfD contribution suggested that the user is a WP:DUCK. In fact I'm more convinced with the creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards by the same user. All the article they edited are articles mostly edited by User:Darreg and the subsequent creation of 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, one of user:Darreg area of interest on Wikipedia. In addition, it seems very unlikely for a 3 days old user with about 6 edit count to create a sensible page like 2015 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, if not a sock, blocked or banned user. I just ping Versace, who also left a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darreg. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 12:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart111,
You and Dsprc have both done large reversions of versions of the Transhumanist Party article on Wikipedia, removing it to become a redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Transhumanist Party. I know you did this because of the discussion last November at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party when the resolution was to change the page to a redirect because of the lack of secondary sources, a decision you were arguing for.
To quote the user Philosopher on that particular discussion thread: "it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether the party will become notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Yet, after over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, you still thought it was appropriate to remove the page and make a redirect to the page for Zoltan Istvan, the party's founder and chairman. It is certainly apparent now—if it wasn't already when the page was created—that the party is a real organization, and not some large orchestrated prank like you seemed to think. You can't say now that it's "too soon" to determine that the party is real unless you didn't look at the changes.
In the deletion discussion, Dsprc said: "It is just Istvan. Is the party registered anywhere? Something like one of these: [1] California (dept state), [2] Florida (dept elections) or New York maybe?? Have they ever gained ballot access anywhere at all? Have they even attempted to do so yet? Who is their Treasurer, Secretary, etc? Or, are there none of these positions because it is just Istvan, and not a political organization at all? Another tell is the lack of a dedicated web resource. Right now, the domain is just a redirect to a subpage on Istvan's site and the domain is assigned to Istvan, and only registered on September 14th (with bogus registration data at that). -- dsprc [talk] 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)" All this information is now on the transhumanist party website at www.transhumanistparty.org (which is functional)—and it is not a redirect to Istvan's own site for that matter. Even so, a political party does not have to be on ballots, acquire votes, or even be registered (which it is) to be notable for Wikipedia. This is not to mention that the complaints voiced by the other users in the Deletion discussion have been settled too, as only more and more news stories have come out in the last three months pertaining to or referencing the US Transhumanist Party and its international affiliates. These references have been added too.
Regardless of all this, Dsprc jumped the gun and removed the page hours after it was restored from the draft with these upgrades. It is questionable whether the page should have been removed in the first place, but the issues that justified that argument in November are no longer applicable to the status of the page how it is now. After being restored a second time by an anonymous user (2600:1003:b11f:127e:0:13:f8ec:af01), it was improved again and then removed similarly a second time by you.
Zoltan Istvan is aware of this issue too, and he is currently writing a series of articles that he will publish on national news media challenging Wikipedia and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are you, Dsprc, Philosopher, Wikipedia executive staff, the organization, and its system's failure to support an article on this political party. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The Free Encyclopedia for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Wikipedia page's will soon too.
All the users I mentioned will be additionally be informed so we can let the community understand this issue. It would be appreciated if you could respond within 24 hours of this message being sent—at least before March 10 UST. I hope you can be of help to the page and to Wikipedia by contributing, not by removing this from the main article namespace.
Thanks, Mechanic1c
I apologize for the COI maintenance tag, as that was a misread on my part. However, the unreferenced maintenance will stay on the page until sources are added to the article. Only after sources are added are you allowed to remove the tags. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|
AWWCBCB award |
Thank you for creating the Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book. I had exactly the same idea when I read the article by Ginger Gorman recently - but you beat me to it! Witty lama 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank you for correcting that admin that the consensus was clearly userfy. I hate this whole subjective process. It's a very strange world where someone who writes for Wired is "unremarkable." Lizardbones ( talk) 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
The gory details. Will make for an utterly fascinating election next year. Frickeg ( talk) 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Garden hermit, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that some 18th-century estates employed garden hermits to dwell as living ornaments, sometimes dressed like druids, in purpose-built hermitages and follies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Garden hermit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart,
Thank you for your critiques but I have some questions on how to improve my article. I am not a veteran wikipedia user, and I am only doing this because of an assignment for my college history class. Where would be an appropriate place for Golden Age pirate weaponry? Also I know my references are shit but I had to put atleast something up due to a deadline. I plan on gutting it and improving it.
Cheadri6 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Not that it'll ever matter, but for my money if the Country Party elected someone tomorrow and they described themselves as a "Country Party MP", then the party would be notable right then and there (and we would describe them as "Country Party" in the member lists). The only example I can think of since registered parties became a thing is Janet Woollard, but to my knowledge she never described herself as a liberals for forests MP (sometimes as an "independent LFF"). Frickeg ( talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)