Jump to content

User talk:Excesses/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Deletions

Thanks for your good work on deletion tagging. A couple of things to remember: don't template the regulars, as in History of bread. Wetman is developing it as a daughter article to Bread, and he's been around for a while and knows what he's doing. I've removed the PROD. It's good to do a little investigating before placing templates, short of obvious vandalism, and a bluelinked user is likely to be a regular. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the tips! Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Russians take over disney

Hey, just to let you know that for articles such as this, it helps to do a quick google search to check the validity. When nothing shows up, it's best to label it with {{db-vandalism}} as opposed to a prod template. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben Clatworthy

Please see the talk page for this page and maybe remove the deletion tag. Thanks (Djgazzer (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

You might like to review Wikipedia: Notability (people) for Wikipedia guidelines on who is considered notable enough for an entry - right now, I don't believe that entry qualifies. If discussion is needed it'll go to the discussion process rather than automatic deletion after a few days, but the way the article stands it's unlikely to survive and would almost be a candidate for speedy deletion. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Yes I have read that page. Ben is well known as a ski journalist and for his television work. Maybe I am wrong but many small television personalities have pages on wikipedia. A newspaper journalist gets a page and Ben has been writing for newspapers?! (Djgazzer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
A good rule of thumb is if the subject of the article has been reported on by others - I can't see anything on google but it looks like you have references that haven't made it into the article yet? Getting the formatting right for referencing on Wikipedia can be a pain, but if you just stick all the links at the end of the article there's usually someone who will come along and sort it out. At least that way they're in there and if he does have outside coverage someone else isn't going to come along and tag it for deletion. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the kind of thing you mean.... top article..... http://arrownews.webs.com/featured.htm (Djgazzer (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

ANI discussion

I want to apologize for not immediately notifying you of the thread discussiing the issues at Julie Bindel. I got sidetracked at another discussion and while putting together the ANI link saw that you had already commented there. -- Banjeboi 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cedar hill, central park

It's not an excessively short article,without context, it's a redirect.DGG (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a see a clarifying reference has been added now - at the time, there was no indication as to where in the world this place was. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

I apologize for the use of the NPOV tag twice, it was not correct to use it that way. I have started a topic on the talk page though. ZoeL (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, because this is a bio of a living person, in order to not inadvertently violate wikipedia's standards it has been decided to thrash out some of the wording of the article on the talk page first. Additionally I have put in a short request for any expert assistance there might be out there on to the LGBT studies page. Please take a look and add your thoughts. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


I am biased on the subject having been a part of the vote, but as you are actively involved with the Julie Bindel article, I thought you may be interested to know and perhaps write about her being censured by NUS Women's Campaign now as well as LGBT Campaign - this is as of about fifteen minutes ago as I write so I can't provide any citation other than post on my personal blog but I can update you when resolutions from the Conference are released if you wish. Xugglybug (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it now, thanks :-) Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just picked up your message - I don't have much interest in the issue apart from what I have I stated on the page. The same could be said in reply. Mish (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean with the above statement? If "the page" you're referring to above is your talk page, ideally this should be restated on the Julie Bindel talk page too (Without repeating the allegation that I was one of the organisers of the campaign - I wasn't, I've already clearly stated my involvement.) ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not start harassing me via my talk page simply because I do not agree with you. Mish (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I posted this on your talk page because I did not want to bring it up myself on the Julie Bindel talk page where others would see it. However, on the face of it you appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest as a friend of Julie Bindel. I'm simply asking that you declare it, or seeking your explanation if you believe that you don't have a COI here. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made it clear that I have no conflict of interest - and in response requested that all of the ten contributors state their interest as clearly as I have. Mish (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S., it was this comment of yours (on facebook) that gave me the impression that you were one of the organisers of the protest:

"I'd like to clarify that one can't simply turn up and do a protest like this - there has been some liason by individuals with the Metropolitan Police and as such we do have a couple of "official" stewards." Mish (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Miss Angola

You were quick! The article was only up a minute. Five other beauty queens from the Miss Angola page have their own pages so why not six? Or if you want to be consistent you should delete the other five as well. I don't really mind.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it's just three links to Youtube, which fails WP:BLP badly. It needs more content and better sourcing. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your userboxes

I've removed two of your userboxes which claim, apparently falsely, that 1) you are female and that 2) you serve in the British Army.[1] 67.170.87.223 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your reversion,[2] will you kindly address this inquiry.67.170.87.223 (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Some reason you're blanking my comments, rather than addressing them?[3]67.170.87.223 (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention of engaging you in debate on this matter as long as you choose to remain anonymous. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Zoe, I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. Obviously, longer blocks can be applied if necessary. Let me know if you want your user page semi-protected. PhilKnight (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm pretty sure it'll stop now, it's a reaction to a debate I'm engaged in elsewhere. If it starts up again from another IP I'll request semi-protection, I don't fancy playing wack-a-mole. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the madhouse

I do not demand it...but things will go better if you at least skim all of the archived discussion and debate. Before commenting. I do when I am not familiar with a Wp pages history. Welcome to the most heated debate on WP.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I did have a look through the prior discussion, yes ~Excesses~ (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Crashplan CSD

Hi, I declined the speedy on Crashplan because CSD A4 doesn't include articles previously deleted via PROD or speedy deletion. You might want to take this to AfD instead. Best, – Toon(talk) 16:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pington

Could you please head back to the Pington AfD and see if the (limited) sources found have any impact on your !vote? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

G3 and personal attacks

Hi there. If you tag articles for speedy deletion that contain personal attacks like Robbie is a whore, please rather use G10 instead which will alert admins of the urgency in a special category. Regards SoWhy 10:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the tip ~Excesses~ (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

M.Mussadiq Ali Shakir

Just a friendly note on M.Mussadiq Ali Shakir. I declined the speedy because the article doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense, it's just very poorly written. However, since I can't find notability for this poet, I've prodded it. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel article

Hi –

I notice that you were involved with a dispute over the Julie Bindel article and I was wondering what your feelings were about the version that was finally ended up with and whether that really reflects a consensus version. I ask because I was reading the Bindel article and thought that the overall tone comes across as kind of an apology for some of Bindel's more controversial views. I then reviewed the talk archives and see that the same complaints were made there too. (If I had known about the argument at the time, I definitely would have commented.)

I appreciate that Benjiboy and Mish were strongly trying to defend WP:BLP, and the removal of content based on weak sourcing (eg, blogs) was called for. However, I also have a strong dislike of seeing BLP interpreted as trumping NPOV, and I think that's what took place in this case. I'm probably going to re-edit the article to give it a more neutral tone and add some material on her early activism and writing for Leeds Revolutionary Feminists. Hopefully, I'm not going to end up setting off another major edit war concerning this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's far too long for starters, which is an issue - it makes her appear far more important and well known than she really is. Sadly, I think it's largely an unwinnable argument - she writes for a newspaper so her views and rebuttals are always easy to prove whereas any criticism of her is ripped apart on the basis of being an unreliable source. There's also a problematic editor involved who, at least time time I dealt with them, routinely engaged in scattergun accusations of policy breaches, (So you have to waste time rebutting every one individually) escalating things higher and higher each time it doesn't go their way to try to find someone who will agree with them and other problematic tactics that have earnt them at least a couple of page blocks in the past. I got pretty fed up of it all to be honest, I'd reengage in debate if I thought it would help but I suspect the only true resolution - throwing the article out and writing something much shorter and to the point - wouldn't go down to well.

Darrin McGillis

Way back when we both created the Darrin McGillis page and now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted. Why dont you chime in if you have a minute. Thanks--Dymo400 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Excesses!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love

Hello Excesses. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not "an article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to Lighted Christmas Balls - please re-read WP:CSD#A7 before tagging more articles. The criteria are narrow for a reason. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ditto for The Traveler (magazine). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed

Hi. I removed your speedy delete tag from Joseph Walther. The criteria for No indication of importance cover only articles which do "not indicate why its subject is important or significant" not those with notability which you believe to be insufficient. Thanks. --Bucephalus (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi there! I've changed this into a PROD now, but I'm intrigued as to why you believe this is not a clear-cut CSD:A7? There is no attempt to establish credibility to even closely meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC and the only two references are biographies from places the subject of the article works. ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This guy is notable. He is an academic who invented a sub-field of study. His works have thousands of citations: [4]. He is clearly a big deal in Computer-Mediated Communication. His article is only 1 hour old. Give it a chance. Thanks. --Bucephalus (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

April Ashley

Hi, not disputing your recent cleanup at April Ashley, just wondering which sources were unreliable? Cheers. -- roleplayer 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to clean-up yet, but of the sources listed, the first two (Unnumbered), 1 through 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are all primarily based on what she has said with no verification. 11 is a 404 error. What alerted me to the problem was her claims of being the first Briton to undergo surgery, which can be disproved as the article for Roberta Cowell has more robust citations than April's article. Granted, April may have thought she was first but then looking at her claims to know John Prescott, alleged affairs she's claimed which have never been substantiated and denied by others involved and other interactions mentioned in linked articles which people are reluctant to verify, it seems she may not be a reliable witness when it comes to her own past. The trouble is, removing those citations then removing uncited claims removes most of the article, and I believe she certainly is notable enough to warrant more than a couple of paragraphs. ~Excesses~ (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I'll store that for looking at when I'm less busy! -- roleplayer 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Excesses! 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:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!
Hi Excesses! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

  • Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
  • Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
  • Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
  • Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
  • Reading and writing for our blog channel
  • Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
  • Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stonewall Awards

That's some good work at Stonewall Awards, looks a lot better GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pink News

Hey, i undid your recent edit as the citation is already included at the end of the section. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was rather clumsily referring to the claim they were "instrumental", which is opinion not fact. I've added a "Says Who" tag as I think that's clearer. ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Well the text was too generous, so i've just reworded it completely. Thanks for tagging it Excesses ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Brown (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hadjerrouit

Hello Excesses. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hadjerrouit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A prof is inherently notable for A7. Will BLPPROD though. . Thank you. GedUK  12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Notify author/project: == Proposed deletion of Los Teke Teke ==

The article Los Teke Teke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sign or source of notability. Poorly written. Not encyclopedic. WP:Fart

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Timestamp: 20130428194656 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Teke Teke 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you've templated the wrong user - I put in the original PROD, I'm not the article author. ~Excesses~ (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry for the digression. I was erring on the side of notifying too many people rather than too few. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Excesses/Archive_1&oldid=1089755731"