The closest thing I could find to a club soda. The page you reinstated as a stub from a redirect has been reviewed. Well done. I OKed it. You are now likely to enter into a merge dispute. Good luck with that. (My wishes of luck are not an endorsement >:) Edaham (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the bubble tea, one of my favorite beverages (and one I like much more than club soda, incidentally). Yes, a merger dispute does seem likely. I have already begun a discussion on the reverter's talk page in hopes of ironing this out smoothly. We shall see, but it is nice to know that anyone is paying attention. Thank you for that! A loose noose (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome. Personally I think that the beverage does deserve its own page. My reason for this per Wikipedia policy is that it is notably distinct not just in its ingredients and preparation, but also in the way it is refered to in culture. I frequently hear the term being used in pop culture as a drink for teetotalers and drivers and so on, and I think if sources exist then this could form the basis for a section in the article which distinguishes it from similar drinks. I’m not an expert in this field though so my opinions here carry little weight without correct sourcing. Edaham (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, clearly. I was assuming that since it was public domain, that attribution wasn't necessary. But that is just careless thinking. Sorry 'bout that. A loose noose (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (George Ball (entomologist)) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for contributing this. Just FYI, having a species (or asteroid, or landmass) named after someone in itself does not make one notable, as scientists have been known to name species after their spouses, children, pets, or co-workers (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). However, in this case WP:NACADEMIC #1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."), as well as the general notability guideline
is satisfied by in-depth coverage and honors received, e.g. here, here, and here. I've added some more info, looks like this guy has had an interesting life!
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
There is no need for a discussion on this— I made a mistake when I created the title for this article, and the redirect I generated when I moved the article into the correct title should absolutely be deleted. Sorry about this. I would have deleted it myself if I could have done so (could I have done so??). A loose noose (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gauntlet (glove), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falconer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Alves until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you'd think that. Actually, I am "obsessed" (not fair, really, but your term for it) with "deleting" articles that appear to lack adequate notability and that don't appear to be the subject of discussion in multiple reliable published independent secondary sources. There happens to be what looks to me like a slough of them in the area of heavy metal music. Please don't mistake my interest in keeping Wikipedia more free from fancruft and fluff pieces with no solid references and meager evidence of notability with an opposition to a music style. Heavy metal is a kind of music, and its creators and participants are sometimes highly notable! Then again, sometimes they are not. It is the "not" that I object to, not the music itself (about which I actually have no opinion at all). Cheers! A loose noose (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only said obsessed because atleast most of your AfD’s are for heavy metal articles. But please, even those a lot of those articles are unsourced or have little sources, a lot are notable (according to the criteria, they don’t need to be sourced in the page). The writers of the article are often the ones to blame. ~SML • TP15:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Frugoli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Kotite until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A loose noose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, A loose noose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was:
Please see WP:NCORP for help on seeing why this was declined.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:System 001 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:System 001, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, A loose noose!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JC7V (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to send you a a note concerning the System 001-discussion we have had. I would just like to say that I sincerely hope that it won't discourage you from submitting new DYK-nominations in the future. That is also why I commented on your hooks despite the merge discussion. To me it seems like you weren't aware of the connection to TOC when you started the article, and than happens to all once in a while. I hope you would like to help with The Ocean Cleanup - I have put some work into it, but it could be great to collaborate on it. All the best. ― Heb the best (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the prompt on this edit. I don't know if you're aware, but the WP convention on reversion is to discuss first, but only actually to revert after a consensus has been reached. You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Reverting. All the best, Richard New Forest (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Boothsift was:
It doesn't sound notable enough for Wikipedia. Possibly explain more about the company, if that helps. But still not notable enough.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raisin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raisin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NCREATIVE, the references are just a series of mentions in passing lacks significant coverage in multiple independent verifiable secondary sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Syed Sahil Agha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Syed Sahil Agha, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello,
I received this message and despite reading the COI wiki page I don't know what I am supposed to do or exactly what you need from me.
I am happy to do whatever it takes.
Could you please send me simpler directions?
I need help.
Sincerely,
Chris
"Chris, you have a COI you need to declare for the article on Fye. Please follow the instructions at WP:COI and place a COI template on your userpage asap. If you need help with that, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboes (talk • contribs)
@Cboes: I read your message above— I am not surprised that you are confused by the instructions! Okay, here's the simple version of what you need to do:
Because you have a pretty clear conflict of interest with regards to the article topic you submitted as a draft (Draft:W. Bruce Fye), Wikipedia expects you to "declare" this so that other editors can keep an eye on you! Mostly this is a friendly thing. If a person is discovered as having an COI and as NOT having declared it, that's where the troubles begin! Right now, you have nothing to worry about.
The declaration is done as follows: right now you do not have a user page. You are going to create one. Click on any red link that says "Cboes" on it. Whenever you click on a red link, you are essentially told "That page does not exist— would you like to create it?" A new page will now appear. There will be a warning on it regarding writing an article, etc. Ignore that. Now, you are going to copy and paste the following text into that page, exactly as it appears on your screen (do not copy it by editing this talk page— I am including extra code on the edit version of the talk page to make it display correctly for you, and you won't get the benefit of this if you copy from the edit window). Here is that code:
{{UserboxCOI
|1=Draft:W. Bruce Fye
}}
Copy and paste that code, curly brackets and all, onto your userpage. Now, click "Save". The page will reload and on it will now appear a template that makes your declaration. That is all you need to do! Give it a shot, and let me know if you have any problem with it.
Once you've made the declaration, you will be expected to only edit that article via edit requests on its talk paqe. Right now, the article is in draft space, so you don't need to worry about edit requests. You are welcome to edit the article as much as you like for now. If/ When it becomes published, however, and if you decide you still want to make additional changes to it, you will need to use the edit request function to do this. You can read more about that by clicking on this link: WP:Edit requests.
If you've looked at the draft recently, you will see that it is much shorter and that a lot of your details were removed. This was my doing, and I want to apologize to you about that up front. Your draft was declined, and I am trying to help you get it published (Dr. Fye sounds like a very notable person, and Wikipedia certainly aught to have this article on him). Article reviewers want to look at the article and get a good quick sense of whether or not the subject is notable. If they have to wade through a long list of book publications or personal annecdotes, they begin to have doubts, and may decline to publish the piece until it suits their style. This process isn't always very fair, and you are left at the mercy of reviewers. BUT...! If the article makes a simple, honest, straightforward case for the person's notability, a reviewer can feel comfortable publishing it and not wondering if they made the right choice! By trimming the article down, I am hoping it will now fit that comfort zone. You had LOTS of information in there, but frankly, it was overwhelming! You can work on expanding the article further once it has been accepted for publication (via the edit requests). But the first thing will be to get it actually published! That's what I'm helping with.
I don't claim to be super experienced, but I've been looking at a lot of Articles for Creation that haven't been published recently, and that is my take on what steps will be necessary to get this one through the door. It may take some time for a reviewer to come along and re-review the piece, but I am hopeful that the next time it is reviewed, it will be published! And then you owe me a doughnut and a cup of coffee in Los Angeles. And if I am wrong, well, we can have a look at that if the article gets turned down again. Sound good? I hope so! A loose noose (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooo, one more quick thing! Whenever you edit a talk page, whether a user talk page or an article talk page, you should write four tildes at the very end, like this: ~~~~. Then, when you save the page, the tildes will be replaced with your linked username automatically. This allows other editors to look at a talk page and see who said what as they go down the page, which can be VERY helpful sometimes. Your signature will kind of be placed there even if you DON'T use the tildes, but if you use the tildes it will be JUST your signature. Give it a try sometime! And welcome! (tilde tilde tilde tilde!) A loose noose (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Did I do it right?? Tomas User:Leachtomas
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "A loose noose", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because because it is inflammatory and/or offensive, especially given the noose picture that was formerly on your userpage. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:Actually, those Google Scholar results are for multi-shell gold wires (which could also be single-shell wires, which makes the co-occurrence of "shell" and "gold" spurious, as the subject there is gold nanowires, not "shell gold") and to core-shell gold as in a core-shell network assembly that happens to have gold in it (which is another false positive for "shell gold", though the two words do occur together here as well). I don't understand the details of the chemistry all that well, but I found "Silica-Shell Silver-Core Nanoparticles" (which has nothing to do with "shell silver" per se anymore than "Silver-Core Silica-Shell Nanoparticles" has to do with "core silica"). I will admit it does appear confusing at first glance! Thank you for finally patrolling these articles I wrote months ago! A loose necktie (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Some help with sources would be great. If you know of any better ones, please feel free to add etc. There are a few sources I added from newspapers etc, so notability shouldn't be an issue, but please let me know if any of the sources are not suitable. Jo Dusepo (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Superbloom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lupine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Brother, I am not doing such things. She is one of the best Models & TV actresses in Bangladesh. That is why I have given more than 20 references. Smnsbd1971 (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References are always a good idea, but the article needs to be WP:NEUTRAL as well, which it was not. However, you have personally removed my deletion notification— this was a bad move, as you yourself also wrote the article. The instructions made clear that if you wrote the article, you should NOT remove the tag but rather should make a statement about why the article should not be deleted. You didn't do this (although you did take steps to make the article less promotional, which is great). A loose necktie (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you just tagged the article Ninjacart for deletion giving the reason of advertisement. I just removed the promotional content from the page. Can you please remove deletion tag.Daffy11 (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to consider it. However, despite the fact that you received a deletion notification, the deletion nomination does not appear either in my own edit history nor that of the article. Which I find exceedingly odd. A loose necktie (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was still April Fool's when you requested speedy deletion of the the soprano who was first to record the first act of Die Walküre. But you come with the next, with a template telling a user who created more than 3000 articles "If this is the first article ...". Can that please stop? Templating regulars? Obviously not looking where links go? Nor at articles in other languages? Where DO you look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies— I saw a biography with almost no content and concluded it was worthy of quick removal. If I had looked further I would have realized it didn't deserve that. My bad, and again, my apologies. A loose necktie (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello A loose necktie
It's interesting that another editor has done some work on this since you put up the proposed deletion, but I wondered whether you have been a teensy bit harsh even before that?
The notability IS regional but there are significant press publications about the artist, and there are 70,000 historic images in the County Record Office archive. That is a considerably important body of work.
I wonder whether you'd be happy if the details of Window Press and the founders were perhaps removed? It is, it seems, the reason Window Press came about, I think, but one could argue that it is irrelevant to the biog of the photographer.
I realise it also looks a bit odd having the Window Press wikilink when it doesn't exist as a page. Would you prefer if that got put up?
let me know...
Cazimir (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cazimir. I've had a second look at the article now. My problem with it is that the sourcing doesn't seem to indicate that he is notable: the sources all point to places where his work can be seen, and that's great, but where is the discussion of Mr Garland himself? Where are references that discuss him as an artist? As a pioneer? Where is there at least one paragraph of published text that talks about what he did and why he was important? The article still doesn't seem to have these things in it, and I am not yet convinced that they exist elsewhere. Thoughts on that? A loose necktie (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.L.N, Ok, agreed. All discussion is in the books which are published prior to websites - is wiki happy with quotes coming in from them or Public Record Office exhibition material IF they can't be web verified other than their listings? It's a difficult one as his notability is partially due to his persistence and depth of study through a considerable period as a photographer of things which weren't the norm at the time; hence the pioneer nature you refer to. What do you suggest and I'll do some more research. Would getting some of his images into public domain i.e. released to wikimedia... help? thanks Cazimir (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Web accessibility makes no difference— your sources can come from any publication whatsoever, including those not available on the Internet, so long as they are legitimate sources and so long as SOMEone could conceivably track them down and verify them. Getting pictures released on to Commons won't make any difference— they do not make him more notable, only more easy to see. Anything generated from a Wordpress blog won't count towards notability. What you really need are publications that have been through some sort of editorial review or peer review process (like an edited book, or a peer reviewed journal of some kind, if they exist for this topic) which discuss him in depth (i.e., not just mentioning his name in passing). Hmmmm.... Let me think on this a bit more for you. I have to run right now, but will try to give this more of a response tomorrow, yes? Thank yo for being willing to look into this further! The article definitely still needs better sourcing, and the fact that it has not been deleted yet doesn't do anything to protect it from being deleted eventually by someone if the sourcing isn't improved! Let's work on that! A loose necktie (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are listed here, - it's a bit like Bishzilla's poq, only for articles. I am (too) busy with great people who died and have no article yet to do something about the tags and drafts immediately, but silently hope that people just will stop dying. Thanks to LouisAlain for creating Ruth-Margret Pütz (on the Main page now)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Superbloom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that California deserts are experiencing the second wildflower superbloom(pictured) in three years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Superbloom. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Superbloom), 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.
Hm.... Russian Wikipedia says 1904, but the Dance Encyclopedia says 1908 (and gives two dates, one for what I believe is the old calendar, one for the new, 21 May vs 3 June). Then this source says 1904 again, and then this one says 1908 again. These are all supposedly reliable sources of information on her. I don't speak Russian either, but a lot can be accomplished with google translate... But where do we go?? A loose necktie (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello A loose necktie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Puteri Muslimah Asia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Going by how many Google News hits exist, this might well be a significant contest. Please take it to WP:AFD instead if notability cannot be established. Thank you. SoWhy07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made an article for the page 'Dayshell (album)', and i'm a little confused as to why you removed it. The reason you put was "redirecting non-notable album to band". I don't see how the debut album for a band is non-notable.
Hi, Comedic Griffin, I redirected the album you mentioned to the band because the album did not appear to qualify as notable in and of itself— the Rocksound link said nothing at all about the album, the review at HitTheFloor appears to have been submitted by a site reader (rather than a paid member of their staff), and the Allmusic link also says nothing about the album other than list its contributors (i.e., there is no discussion of the album per se). The best reference was the first one to AltMusic, but we need more than a single reference to establish independent notability for an album. There are some subject specific guidelines about albums here which explains what kind of coverage an album has to have to qualify as notable if it does not meet the requirements of the general notability guidelines. Now, having said all that, you are welcome to undo my edit by visiting this link and clicking on the "Undo" option for my edit. This will restore your original article. However, if you do this, I strongly encourage you to be prepared to provide more solid referencing or the article might get redirected once again (but not by me!). The refs aught to be formatted according to the info located at Wikipedia:Citing sources (including author's name, date of publication, title of page/ document, etc., not just an HTML link to where it is located) and they need to show discussion of the album, not just verify that it exists. I know that there are a LOT of album articles on Wikipedia, many of them for albums that are probably not really notable, and I didn't meant to single yours out. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns, and please sign your talk page messages (on any talk page on Wikipedia, whether an article talk page or a user talk page) with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) which will automatically be converted into your username so that I can quickly and easily see who said what, yes? Thank you! A loose necktie (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, I'll try to find better sources for the article. And apologies for not signing my message, I'm still a little new to Wikipedia and am still figuring things out. Comedic Griffin (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A representation of the exchanges of energy between the source (the Sun), Earth's surface, the Earth's atmosphere, and the ultimate sink outer space. The ability of the atmosphere to capture and recycle energy emitted by Earth's surface is the defining characteristic of the greenhouse effect.
Hello.
Sorry, but:
Your image may be a quality work, and I think it would be great if "greenhouse effect" wasn't a misnomer. Unfortunately, it is. The big "GREENHOUSE" word alone (without "effect") in the picture is just a big fat no-no (no, the atmosphere isn't a planet's greenhouse glazing; no you cannot suggest it is).
That's why, despite obviously lower quality, the previously used image remains better: Because it illustrates the caption "The ability of the atmosphere to capture and recycle energy emitted by Earth's surface is the defining characteristic of the greenhouse effect", which your image doesn't (yet).
I hope you are willing to change your work, so that it emphasizes the greenhouse effect recycling (with, or without numbers, this is not important)? In between I'll revert to previous image.
Cheers.
Gem fr (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not elaborate my thought, but as you have me do it now, here it is. Methink there are 2 main points
have some cycling arrows;
remove all words, put some symbols on arrows and the cycle; this, for easier internationalization.
I dare add, if you allow me
arrows should be, if not to scale, at least in the proper order: only 1/10 of radiation from the surface make it to space, back-radiation are much bigger, even bigger than direct solar energy (strangely enough)
some arrows, or at least some labels, are optional; we don't really care about reflected energy for instance
Also, ask other people (talk page is just for that). My opinion is just that, other people's is just as relevant.
I have been considering your comments, here are some of my own concerns:
You ask for cycling arrows. My problem with this is that it misrepresents the way that energy travels. Energy may get moved around from place to place in a cyclical fashion, but it travels in more or less straight lines. Therefore here I have used zig-zags instead of loops— they better reflect the actual processes that are taking place. Many, many diagrams showing the greenhouse effect use straight lines, not loops or circles with arrows on them.
You have suggested I remove all words for better internationalization. This is not a bad idea. However, the image you put back in place of mine is itself full of [English] words, making it, if anything, no better than my image in this way. I have used rather few words, and tried to keep my labels simple and brief. Surely this is enough here.
"We do not care about reflected energy, for instance..." Except that reflected energy is one of the things commonly depicted in diagrams of the greenhouse effect, so while it may not contribute to the warming of the earth, it does account for where some solar energy comes and goes, which may be helpful to the reader. If there are other aspects of the diagram that you feel misrepresent what is going on, please let me know. That we do not "care" about a particular part of the process doesn't seem to me like reason to exclude it, especially inasmuch as I hope my image can be used for many articles related to the greenhouse effect and solar radiation. Leaving off this kind of detail limits the potential use of it elsewhere.
You have said this is just your 2¢, but you have also removed my image and replaced it with a former one. That makes you more than offering an opinion, it makes you the arbiter of which image is better to include and which is not. Offering 2¢ would be telling me your thoughts but not changing out the image!
I meant, not a single arrow in circle form, but rather several arrows (straight, zig-zig, or slightly curved) arranged in circle, each beginning where the preceding ended. This is what the GE is all about.
I agree that the current image shows its age, is not that good, including for internationalization, and yours as potential to be better (if I thought otherwise I would just have told you to just stop trying).
reflected energy has no part in the greenhouse effect: this energy just doesn't enter the system. So we can, and must, skip it. It does matter for Earth's energy budget, which is an entirely different (although related) matter, with its own images. An image-fits-all related topics seems highly improbable (and undesirable) to me
that was my 2¢ about your improving your image, not about which one is better between the current used and your proposition. I stand to my view that the former is better than the latter. Now, then again, other people have their say, and can be asked through the talk page.
How would you feel about having a friendly WP:RfC on the topic? I think we could use some input from some more people. We can present it as a joint offering, not as editors in opposition. Could be very useful for both of us! What do you think? A loose necktie (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, please check out my latest version of the concept. I have simplified it greatly. Please share your thoughts. I have made it internationalizable (is that a word??), have removed the greenhouse label altogether, have reduced the number of arrows, and have only shown the energy shifts that take place within the atmosphere, not those which do not affect this (i.e., I have removed all reflected energy arrows). I have not run it by the Q.I. folks at Commons, but that isn't necessary to become a lead image, of course. (To what extent, do you think it is worth indicating that water vapor in the form of clouds both reflects solar energy and traps it? It does both, and maybe this is worth making more evident.) A loose necktie (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I indeed didn't. I like simpler things, and I find it interesting the highlight on the physical mechanism with molecules, and the fact that you stripped the image of most energy arrows except those which matter most for the effect. I also like the color switch of the solar energy into redish surface radiation. And the way radiations arrows chain, even though it doesn't make a cycle. This image is good to publish for me, provided you make the radiation arrows from greenhouse gases bigger (remember that the surface gets almost twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it from the direct solar radiation). Thanks for the effort, Methink it was worth it. Gem fr (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A loose necktie -- I've declined this A7 speedy, as multiple clear claims are present in the article, so much so that I wonder if it was an error? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the regulations about Sportsmen, but Guillaume Bianchi is one of the best Italian fencers and not only a Silver medalist at Universiade (he also won the Gold). But above all, he already god a podium at the World Cup : and all the fencers that reach the podium at the World Cup, or some international level, seem, for my humble opinion, notorious. But you know the regulations better than me… let me know if I am wrong. Yours.-Binbaksa (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I was really interested in the reactions. Of course you are right to ask for references. I mean, how else could people be sure that we are not distributing alternative facts here, right? But first of all, I would be interested in your verdict about automobile magazine (which appears to have existed without fundamental debate for well over 10 years now). I would really be interested how you think the two articles are any different in terms of their persuasiveness. It certainly has nothing to do with the dominance of cars and the relative irrelevance of human-powered bikes in Western societies, ... or does it? -- Kku (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good argument for converting THAT article in to a redirect as well, actually. My intention here was to suggest that having a Wikipedia article titled [anything] magazine, without reference to a specific magazine, isn't terribly useful and doesn't convey anything to the reader, never mind the difficulty in specifying references that support a claim of notability for such an idea. If not outright deleted, the idea of redirecting such "magazines" to a category or list of such magazines seems to make a good deal more sense to me than having a stub article on a concept for a class of magazines. Let me know if you agree. A loose necktie (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visibly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to an admin to grant or deny NPR permissions, but despite having a quite good CSD record, your AfD record needs some work. It seems like you may be a bit too quick to nominate articles for deletion. It also looks like you've been the nominator of almost every AfD discussion that you've participated in: I'd recommend participating in a few AfD discussions started by other editors, and get some more experience with them. Nominating articles for deletion is a critical part of being a new page reviewer, but it's also important that we don't scare off editors making content that belongs in the encyclopedia. signed, Rosguilltalk07:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice— I don't think I am going to ask for the opportunity to do this a third time, my interest has been successfully quashed. But again, thank you for the advice. A loose necktie (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.
Hey it's a township in Greater Jakarta developed by a private company. It's already , eastblished as a neighborhood and location. How a neighborhood can be judged as an advertisement? M R Karim Reza (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aleluya (En La Tierra). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - As you originally nominated this page, it may be worth you contributing, if interested. Thanks. Nightfury08:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your rationale for non-notability of the Thelonious Monk albums?
What is your rationale for non-notability of the Thelonious Monk Mini-LPs????? These were the albums as Monk originally intended them to be heard, in the primary format that existed at the time.
You just wiped out a whole day of my work? What is my recourse? These are historically crucial albums which have recently been re-released. Please explain. Thank you. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is my hope that by reallocating this release's chronology as that of a "Mini-LP", much as the Beatles have a separate Wikipedia EP chronology which sometimes intersects their LP chronology, I can avoid the record being designated as "not notable".
This required a lot of additional work, and the work was done with a lot of thought. I do think it clears up the chronology, which was admittedly made a little complex by my prior navigation attempt. I hope you are satisfied. Please engage with me if you aren't, instead of wholesale unilaterally deleting the page without discussion or communication with me. Thank you.
I will add that, at all times, this and the similar Monk "mini-LP" pages included at least 4 links to outside sources on legit "notable" websites discussing the albums. This sort of unilateral redirection/deletion, without discussion, verges on trolling, vandalism, or harassment; and to zap 4 interlocking pages, on the same day that they are first being assembled, seems not in the spirit of knowledge and information that I believe Wikipedia to be about. I intend to monitor this sort of action closely, and to take appropriate steps to protect these AND OTHER pages if this behavior continues. I've done it before and I'll do it again. Thank you for your understanding. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Linhardt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Last year I had tried to add a Wikipedia page on Malcolm Levy, an artist I wrote about in my second book (with Dartmouth College Press). You fairly nominated it for deletion, but then time got away from me before I could do much, and the page was deleted because I didn't make any changes. I wanted to pass you a note that I plan to try again in the coming while, just organizing the right tone and citations, and I'd appreciate your feedback if it comes to that. Thanks! More soon.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red light therapy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roxy, the PROD. .wooF21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A loose necktie! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Vampire Balls?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Lilia Buckingham a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Lilia Buckingham. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Amkgp💬16:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Sallow (color), is not suitable as written to remain published. It is not clear whether this topic is notable in Wikipedia terms, but it may be, if adequate sourcing demonstrates it. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONGS and is unlikely to advance beyond stub status due to the lack of coverage on both the song and Club Future Nostalgia (its parent album). Plus, the actual song hasn't even been released, only a remix.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I have no objection to conducting the acceptance of this draft, though doing so is against my instincts. AFC reviewers have a guidelkne, which is only to accept drafts which we view as having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Conversely our role is not to insist on illusory perfection prior to acceptance.
I imagine I will attract some flak by doing so, but I'm old and ugly enough to weather that. In truth I am interested in whether your interpretation holds sway when the article is live. FiddleFaddle16:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From one old and ugly though less experienced editor to another: I thank you for the opportunity to let us see where these chips may fall and on whose head they may land. I suspect, in the end, you will be proven correct. Wouldn't it be refreshing if you weren't this time? :-) A loose necktie (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loose necktie, i'll be very interested and happy to be proved incorrect. I feel it to be a wr=orthwile experiment. I predict speedy deletion almost immediately, perhaps slightly biased by an inappropriate deference to my track record here FiddleFaddle16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Also, "The snail shows that mathematics and nature are alike (...) there is an order that may have a message." I don't know what that means, but it feels appropriate right now. From the article under discussion. Cheers! A loose necktie (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent You predicted it, and you were not wrong! Am trying to keep my blood pressure low. Have now thrown in four sources and asked Theroadislong, whom I can see has a very long and very widely respected history of editing Wikipedia, to reconsider his nomination. Please do maintain your own neutrality, your role here is to observe and take note, as you have said, and mine is to test my mettle in this fire (not even my damn fire!) A loose necktie (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the references, have you clicked them? For me the reviews all fail. The top one confuses me. Translation is no problem, google translate is good enough FiddleFaddle19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding four sources that fail verification is not likely to make me reconsider my nomination! Not sure what your game is here? Having an article in the Spanish Wikipedia has no bearing whatsoever on the english draft, they have different guidelines entirely. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they (the different wikis) have different guidelines. But are they not meant to be at least similar guidelines? Do we routinely consider other wikipedias to be unfounded sources of information? There were at least eight more sources I could have added from the Spanish Wikipedia-- did NONE of them conform to the English Wikipedia's standards for sourcing? My "game" is only this: we have a guideline which seems to contravene what looks like accepted policy. I find that irksome. Do you not? A loose necktie (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell. Currently I predict it will be closed as no consensus which is tantamount to a full keep. I suggest you ignore stand let it run FiddleFaddle07:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: And it seems you were indeed correct! I am not sure I helped by participating the way I did, however. It's just damned hard to bite my tongue sometimes. Should have taken your advice on that more to heart. A loose necktie (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has survived for the moment. However, a second deletion discussion may see it on its way. The question is, what has been proved? FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me06:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, its position is tenuous, and a second nomination might topple it. What I hope has been proved is that the subject has been talked about (in the Spanish speaking world) by enough published sources to indicate it is verifiably notable, though the pre-existence on the Spanish Wikipedia seems to be the only "real" thing holding this in place (as delicate as that is). But isn't that enough? Do you think? And do you think it likely to be challenged a second time? A loose necktie (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long we been at this? 'Tis been almost exactly one month now! Some wheels turn slowly. Thank you for taking a chance on a dubious draft. I think it was the right choice. I will continue to think so. Thanks! (Hm. Perhaps I would even benefit from watching the series. Certainly sounds rather interesting!). A loose necktie (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A loose necktie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Adventures of Fram, the Polar Bear, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
So, I just finished reading over the technicalities of closing move requests, and I am probably not gonna do any more of those, I don't think. Was glad to assess consensus on Vincent Chin, but the "move" component is way more complicated than I realized. No worries! I am not even sure I am going to attempt many more closures right now anyway. I think I handled correctly the ones I closed, but I feel like I should take a class or something first. A loose necktie (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a problem, Aln, so just alter "Live and learn" to "Edit and learn" (we've all been there). As long as you make yourself aware of the guides and such, I'm sure you will do a great job here on Wikipedia. Again, thanks for all your help!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there19:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I closed that discussion, and I agree with you What would you like me to do from this point forward? Is this a request? Please let me know. Thank you! A loose necktie (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aloose, regarding your close, what did you think about discussing whether there was consensus on the criteria used to select an image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your close at Talk:Woman did not address the most important point
Your closing statement -- and in particular No image might have been an outcome with greater consensus if not for MOS:LEADIMAGE. missed the central argument for "no image". Due to the challenges associated with selecting representative images, it was determined first that we should not have galleries of photos representing ethnic groups at the top of articles about those groups . Then, in a decision spurred on in part by people at Talk:woman saying it shouldn't apply there, that decision was then expanded to include "similarly large human populations". That discussion was held at a central MOS location, so per WP:LOCALCON I would not expect a single article to overturn it. Then we have here again a discussion at Talk:woman, where people have undertaken some feats of wikilawyering to argue that somehow the consensus that it's too problematic to choose only a small number of images to represent a large group should not apply to the selection of one image because the wording of those RfCs doesn't include single images (as though that isn't more, rather than less problematic). And that discussion is closed with MOS:LEADIMAGE trumping "no image," without even mentioning MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY or the past well-attended RfCs? Please reconsider (or edit your closing statement). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Unless this was recently added, MOS:LEADIMAGE even says this: Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. Not sure how invoking LEADIMAGE somehow supports the position of requiring an image... (sorry I somehow missed this getting closed a few days ago) —Locke Cole • t • c14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Header tape until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I just wanted to drop you a note about the edit I'm making at the moment. Back in 2020 you swapped out the North American mattress dimensions image on Bed size. I assume that you considered the original image confusing, but I think your new one fails to improve the situation. The older image allows for a practical comparison of both length and width, while the new image really doesn't allow for either. The dimensions are similar enough that placing all of the mattresses in a row makes it impractical to visually compare length, and tricky to compare width (especially in the thumbnail size IMO). The old image is not perfect, but allows for some quick comparisons of "which is dimensions are larger/equal". It's a hard info-graphic to get right and I didn't want you to feel like the edit was churlishly reverted. I feel that the old image makes a better companion for the dimensions table it goes along with. 65.120.64.165 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A loose necktie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sallow (color), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, A loose necktie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sallow".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy couture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
An article you recently created, Tomás Matos, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕15:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you have relocated the article I wrote on Tomas Matos. Although the article was brief, I think you will agree that the subject of the article was discussed non-trivially in two major news sources that were given in the article-- the New York Times and NBC News. Given that level of attention, I am not sure I understand your purpose in moving the article to draft space. Is the subject notable? If not, then the article deserves to be nominated for deletion. If so, what is gained by making it a draft article other than preventing other editors from becoming aware of it and adding to and improving it? You have described it as "not suitable" because it needs more citations. It has citations. Good ones. Reliable, independent ones. Ones which by themselves prove the subject's notability. Draftifying it feels like deletion by other means, and that comes across as underhanded here. I guess I have no choice. A loose necktie (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can do this myself (or at least, I don't see any policy at WP:DRAFTIFY that says that I cannot). It may be presumptuous, but then so was the move to draftify the article, I think. According to what appears to be written there, this article should never have been moved into draft space in the first place, though please correct me if I am wrong. A loose necktie (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomás Matos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
@Hipal:: Apologies for the egregious delay in responding. I closed that RfC quite awhile ago now. I have skimmed over the discussion, which was somewhat contentious-- I did not come across any statement in it supported by multiple editors which included this exact assertion. My recollection of my thinking at the time was that wording the closing of the RfC to include it was based on the existing policy we have on biographies which states "[a] Wikipedia [biography] includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources"-- that is, Wikipedia biographies routinely include full names and dates of birth, and an accurate date of birth is important. I certainly did not expect that to be surprising or confusing, but should not have implied that this assertion came from that particular discussion. A loose necktie (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have a possible answer to this one, since I wondered the same as @Hipal:.
I really don't get why this is such a contentious issue as to require so much discussion. Surely we should simply say what is verifiable. If a birth date is agreed among reliable sources then we should say it in the lead. If it is not agreed we should not say it there. If there are reliable sources reporting a disagreement then we should say so, but if not we can't go beyond saying that reliable sources do not agree. Isn't this simply basic verifiability, which all edits should follow? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC) which was then agreed to by @TheSandDoctor:.
If that is the case, could that portion be added to the WP:DOB section as well? It always struck me as somewhat odd that it wasn't there but was on the RfC close, and it seems more or less a WP:COMMONSENSE thing editors should do with sources (write what is agreed upon, note the outlier or anomaly separately if it isn't widely reported).
I've seen several cases following that exact RfC where editors go by a strict reading of that specific portion added into policy and include random typos from Kid's Almanacs of Random Facts, photos captioned with an age that doesn't allign with the agreed upon birthday elsewhere from old issues of People magazine, and most importantly high school yearbooks to try to fight a date agreed by all other reliable sources. ("They would have been 16 when they graduated, so we can't include their birthdate since the graduation date implies something else, per WP:DOB!")
I hate it when strict readings drown out good ol' common sense. I really, really do. If my interpretation of that conclusion has been used to justify this kind of behavior, then I will offer to rescind it and re-open the RfC. Better that than the absurdities mentioned above! Thoughts? A loose necktie (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk or Walk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello, A loose necktie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cockayne's project, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You asked Where are the comments from the draftifying reviewer (you)? I am not the draftifying reviewer. The draftifying reviewer was User:North8000. As you note, they moved a large number of articles to draft space. They left comments on the talk page of User:Gardenkur stating that they were moved to draft space per request and by agreement with author. So I agree with your observation that there were a large number of these articles. I would suggest that you ask North8000 and Gardenkur for any more information. I was merely putting a comment, {{sentback}}, on the draft stating that it had been moved from article space to draft space. I noticed it because its title was both in article space and in draft space. It was in article space as a redirect that was tagged for R2. So that is about all that I can tell you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spreader bar (angling) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello A loose necktie. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Michael Waldman (palaeontologist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan199918:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies-- I had tried tagging it once and the screen appeared to lock up. I refreshed the page and saw that it had no tag on it, so tried placing the tag a second time. I thought it had not worked the first time, which is the only reason I "re-"tagged it. Certainly didn't mean to tag it twice, that would have been foolish. I see the promotional wording of the article has been removed. A loose necktie (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Missvain were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Hi.
I’m sorry, but the sourcing here isn’t helping the subject meet our General Notability Guidelines nor WP:NPROF. The sourcing here is all primary or press releases.
We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Rodrigo da Costa. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Rodrigo da Costa specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Rodrigo da Costa; television and radio features ABOUT Rodrigo da Costa.
Frankly, if the subject isn’t passing WP:NPROF they may not be eligible for an encyclopedic article.
Also see WP:RS for additional guidance on what reliable secondary sources are.
If those are available, please improve this submission. If not, then it might not be the right time (WP:TOOSOON) for Rodrigo da Costa to have a Wikipedia article.
I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!
If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rodrigo da Costa (engineer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello A loose necktie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amir Khan Jawansher, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think a regional govenor is enough for CSD. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. GedUK09:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello A loose necktie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Suay Sew Shop, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Enough sources provided to credibly indicate signficance. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK08:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A loose necktie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Metropolitan Fashion Week, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Pyrrho the Skipper}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, A loose necktie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shortbow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, A loose necktie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shortbow".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello A loose necktie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Open-source intelligence, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It looks like the https://www.cyberoneintel.com/osint website has re-used the content of Open-source intelligence for its own purposes. I note from its source code, it is a Squarespace built website, so very unlikely to host the original text. I do agree that this article is, let's just say, somewhat less than optimal . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are correct, and it was bad form of me to make such an extraordinary claim while providing no evidence... Did you know that zircon was ONCE considered the heaviest of any gemstone? I suspected it was, and have added a link as reference to this info which, while no longer accurate, remains a very interesting characteristic of this mineral. See the article, and please change the wording as you see fit. Thank you for pointing this out to me. A loose necktie (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there loose necktie — I'm not sure what you meant on this edit with the summary "No reason given for change of name or title". I had previously changed the heading from "Opposition from animal rights activists" to "Response" with the summary "heading change since section includes both positive and negative responses", which remains true. By reverting to the previous version before mine you also lost this edit which included a lot of good url fixes. I've set it back to my version. Retswerb (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Mount Chapman (Antarctica). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Spygate (conspiracy theory) 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! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "A loose noose", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because because it is inflammatory and/or offensive, especially given the noose picture that was formerly on your userpage. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
.svg)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jorge Lanata, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)