User talk:NostinAdrek

Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg

FYI I have remove the prod notice as the List in question was separated from SS Gothenburg after a lengthy discussion were consensus was that the information should be presented as a separate list. Gnan garra 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is "whites only" not racist?

See Talk:Farmington Country Club. I dispute your NPOV tag. If you want to dispute my dispute, I will issue an RfA and we can discuss with others.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erxnmedia,

OK, I agree. My mistake.

Thanks, NostinAdrek (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shin of Hindukush

Please remove the tags on this article now . The content provided is from a noted verifiable source along with the citation . The Shins are a community living in the Hindukush mountains with a long history .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NostinAdrek

Reminder
Please remove the Tags placed on this page .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Intothefire,

I've removed the tags, and I've reworded the material. I've not changed anything - I just rewrote what was there. It needed rewording because the English was difficult to understand. Please check what I wrote to make sure it makes sense to you. NostinAdrek (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale D'Silva

Hi NostinAdrek - I'm the one that placed the original prod on this article, and I agree wholly with your placement of the notability tag. I just wanted to give you the heads up that the article creator and I have been discussing this at User talk:AlbertaVoter, and I've agreed to give her/him twenty-four hours to dig up some third party coverage to assert notability before taking it to AfD. It doesn't look as though you're planning on going the AfD route right now anyway, but, in case you were, I wanted to ask you to give him that 24 hours. I personally doubt that he's going to be able to demonstrate notability for the simple reason that I don't think D'Silva is notable, but I think it's best to give people a chance if they think they'll be able to. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks. NostinAdrek (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - thanks for reminding me via the note on User:AlbertaVoter's talk page. I'm trying to keep a lid the various vanity articles in Alberta general election, 2008, but it's something of an uphill battle, as another one popped up today (this being in addition to the eight I've already gotten deleted and the three that are currently at AfD). And this is with me being extremely generous in my assessment of what constitutes a notable candidate - among the candidates I've let slide on the basis of some very marginal notability are Ed Klop (since he ran for leadership of his party), Fred Horne (on the basis that he's published what appear to possibly be important papers on health administration), Mike Robinson (on the basis that he used to run a mildly notable museum), and Sean Maw (on the basis that he's the first Green candidate to finish second in any riding in Canada). You could make a case for deletion for any/all of them, but I've decided to only target the really blatant ones. Anyway, enough of me whining.

In response to your question: yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The base notability guideline (WP:N) is that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This applies to any subject under the sun (although what constitutes "significant coverage" is obviously something of a judgment call): if it's received sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources, even if that coverage was only due to being a political candidate, it's notable. WP:BIO refines this to say that certain types of people - people holding elected national/provincial/state-wide office, for example - are "inherently notable". This doesn't mean that they're exempt from the requirement of coverage in reliable third party sources, just that such coverage is presumed to exist (i.e. all MPs are presumed to have received that level of coverage, so they should never be deleted on the basis of lack of notability). WP:BIO specifically states that unelected candidates aren't inherently notable. That doesn't mean that they're inherently non-notable, though, just that, unlike MPs and the like, they're not presumed to be notable until the existence of sufficient coverage is demonstrated. I hope that clarifies things a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For further elaboration, here, here and here are some examples of articles that were kept at AfD basically only on the strength of unsuccessful candidacies for office. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Notability tag

Edmund Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield of Butterwick is notable in his own right from being made "1st Baron" by Henry III. Further, besides his being notable because he was a Baron, the notability of Edmund could also include his participation in events that happened in his lifetime which I and other editors will contribute as they are obtained. Indeed, such things as his mortal contribution in assisting the Marquess of Northampton in the attempt to put down Ket's Rebellion as well as his legacy of fathering an illustrious family of nobility. With your permission of course, I would like to remove the nobility tag? Daytrivia (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been expanded and referenced since I added the notability tag, and so I'm happy for it to be removed. Thanks. NostinAdrek (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention & prompt reply. I will proceed to remove the tag. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello NostinAdrek! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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 wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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 wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi NostinAdrek,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, NostinAdrek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NostinAdrek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]