User talk:Connorthomha
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay
[edit]Hello Connorthomha. I have replied to your message on my talk page but I did want to take a sec to apologize here for the delay in getting to you. I got caught up doing 3 or 4 other things - including making a post on the talk page for the DVD releases. We will see what others think about these. Thanks again for you time and cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Reign of Terror tweet
[edit]How am I to know who really posted that tweet? It's signed "Classic Doctor Whoclassicdw" which could be anybody, just as "Redrose64" could be anybody. I'm sorry, but it fails WP:SPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- The "classicDW" feed is run by Dan Hall - the man in charge of all the Classic Doctor Who DVD releases. [[Wikipedia::RS]] clearly states if the blog (Twitter in this case) is run by a professional in the field then it can be deemed an acceptable source. Dan more than meets this category. --Connorthomha (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I saw your edit summaries, but how am I to know that it's really run by Dan Hall?
- You're misinterpreting WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper). What it actually states is, and I quote,
- ... self-published media—whether ... blogs, ... or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated ... with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
- So, it starts off with an explicit statement that tweets are largely not acceptable.
- "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
- I don't think that tweets are subject to full editorial control.
- Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
- Again: how do I know that the user who styles himself "classicdw" really is Dan Hall? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I do see your point here. It is a common fact among fan communities (Gallifrey Base etc.) that ClassicDW is run by Dan Hall, I'm pretty sure on some official website it states this, also on Doctor Who Online on the Vengance on Varos newspost they state "Earlier today, 2|Entertain also confirmed the Late 2012 release of The 1st Doctor adventure; The Reign of Terror via their Twitter feed." referring to classicDW also on the DWO it has in numerous pictures such as the one HERE it has in the corner a link to the classicDW twitter. This is seen on alot of other sites and images as well. Im sure if you did a bit of digging you could find out some concrete evidence. --Connorthomha (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative
[edit]| WikiWomen Unite! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi Connorthomha! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate! |
The article Tariq Masood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article is about a non-notable character in a TV series.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
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.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)