User talk:Rupert'sscribe

Welcome to the talk page. All hail Rupert. Rupert'sscribe (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lin

I reverted your edit to Jeremy Lin. Per WP:V, sources support him "outplaying" Williams. NPOV is not a lack of a point of view, but a fair representation of all viewpoints. I dont believe there are any verifiable claims that Williams was not outplayed. Feel free to discuss if you have further concerns. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if we're going to say Williams was outplayed, we should clearly present that as someone's opinion. You can't really present that as a fact. The sportswriters are picking and choosing which statistics to give the most weight to. It's not like Lin outperformed Williams in every statistical category. Zagalejo^^^ 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While someone who didnt watch the game would resort to just looking at the boxscore for comparison, I trust that a journalist is using their expert opinion on the overall game to determine if he was "outplayed/outdueled", which does not necessarily require Lin surpassing Williams in every category, and might also be based on factors not in a boxscore. I do agree on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV if the opinion is debated now, but the added detail would seem to be too cluttered for what it adds in this case. As a compromise, let's just say Williams was an All-Star and leave it at that.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Rupert'sscribe/Rakim Sanders has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rakim Sanders, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Keith Wright

I'm sorry about removing the information in the legacy section. The only reason I removed the legacy section was because I mistakenly thought the information was already in the article, so yes the information should be added to somewhere else in the article. NBA Fan44 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rakim Sanders

Hi, I see that you've resubmitted this article for review, but I don't see any changes from the previous version that was reviewed? The concerns indicated were that the sourcing did not adequately show notability under our rules; have you been able to identify additional references? Please let me know if I'm looking in the wrong place; wouldn't be the first time. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sarah was correct on several levels - for one, Indianapolis is indeed an amateur sports town. But the critical point here, in so far as this article is concerned, is whether the sources provided show that the subject (Mr. Sanders) is indeed Notable under our policies. It may be that he is notable in fact, but that that notability is not confirmed by sources - in which case the article would not be approved, given that the subject is a living person and our rules are fairly strict about Biographies of living persons. In that case, you'd want to find more and better sources to bolster the case for notability, at which time we'd revisit the matter. So let's look at the sources, as they're numbered currently (as per this revision).

This source is from Boston College. It may confirm some data, but does not show that the subject is notable - anyone who played on the team would have a similar page, whether they were notable or not.
This source is a player stat page from ESPN - and, again, any player for whom stats exist would have such a page. This may confirm that Sanders played in games, or for a particular team, but does not indicate notability.
This is the 2008 schedule for the BC Eagles, and does not mention Sanders in any way.
Similarly, this is the 2009 schedule - and, again, Sanders is not mentioned.
This is the recap and Box Score for the win vs. UNC. Sanders is mentioned, but the article is not about him - it's about the team and the win. This is what would be termed "Routine Coverage". It confirms that Sanders played and was present, but isn't directly about Sanders himself.
This is the 2010 schedule for BC - and, again, Sanders is not mentioned.
This article is about Sanders, and does discuss his transfer from BC to Fairfield. It doesn't really go into much depth, honestly, but it is a valid reference.
This article is from the Bleacher Report, and does focus on Sanders - but I'm not sure that the Bleacher Report meets the requirements for a Reliable Source. For one, it's unclear what (if any) editorial control exists; this is a key requirement.
This is a brief mention in a long list from ESPN analyst Andy Katz. The fact that the mention is so brief and the list itself is speculative (players who might be in the running for an award), it's not a good measure of notability.
This is a blank reference. Perhaps a coding error?
This article is from the Connecticut Post, and talks about Fairfield's loss to Mercer in the CIT. It mentions (and quotes) Sanders, but doesn't go into much depth about Sanders himself.
This is an article from the Hartford Courant, and talks specifically about Sanders and his performance at the PIT. It also speculates about his draft prospects.

So I dunno. It's awfully thin, and I can see precisely where Sarah's concerns lie - When we look at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes, we see that Sanders has not won a national award, has not been inducted into the hall of fame for his sport, and has not gained national media coverage on his own merits. But for the mention from Andy Katz, there's no reliable national coverage that I can see. He does have draft prospects, so I looked at the Notability guideline for Pro Athletes in Basketball, and I see that one of the criteria there is "Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft." So it's possible that Sanders would be considered notable once drafted - and at that point an article would certainly be appropriate. I can't shake the feeling that the article may be premature - and I would not be comfortable approving an article on a living person with this level of sourcing. But it's much more of a "Not yet" concern, as opposed to a "Never ever" concern - Sanders is likely to become notable at some point, and when he does we'll be here. There is no Deadline.

I hope this helps. I can tell from your exchange with Sarah that you feel strongly about this subject, and that's great - but do remember that we're all on the same team here, working to improve the encyclopedia. When we disagree, we don't assume that the other editor doesn't know what they're talking about - we assume that they are acting in good faith. Take a deep breath and see if there are ways to address the concerns - whether by finding more, better sources or by waiting for more obvious notability. Remember to remain WP:CIVIL; your comments on Sarah's talk page seem to have gotten a little heated, and that helps no one. Good luck to you, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, though - I believe Sarah's analysis was sound, and I largely agree with her. The sources above aren't sufficient to show that Sanders is notable at present. It doesn't mean that he's not notable, it doesn't mean that he won't be more notable down the line - all it means is that we do not have enough references to document that he meets one of our notability criteria. These criteria formed over time through consensus, and articles that don't meet those criteria, and which don't have compelling reasons to keep beyond that, are frequently deleted through the Articles for Deletion process. The argument that people like Jeremy Lin had articles at this point isn't valid, because Jeremy Lin is not Rakim Sanders. Each subject is different, the coverage of each subject is different, and one cannot be equated to the other. The relevant essay is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

And that's the major intent of the Articles for Creation process - when an article moves to the main article space from AFC, it is presumed to be compliant with our policies. In this case, I don't think the article as it stands (and given the sourcing available) would survive a deletion nomination. Better to wait and see what happens with the draft before proceeding, I would think. Once an article is deleted at AFD, it's that much harder to create an article, as there will then be a presumption that the subject is non-notable. My recommendation is that you wait - either leave the draft at AFC for as long as they'll let you, or move it to a userspace draft. Then we'll see. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think hiring an agent is an example of routine coverage - there's no analysis, nothing to indicate that it's anything other than reporting the fact that it happened. Plus, everyone in the draft hires an agent, yes? So it's not something that defines Sanders as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The additional source (I assume you mean this one) goes into some detail about Sanders, as you say - but the concern there is that it is a local source. The notability criteria talks about nationwide coverage, and so this would not meet that requirement. I think we cross posted on Friday, as I did not see the new source before posting - so my apologies there.

I'm also concerned that we seem to be talking past each other. My only point about the proposed article is that I do not think the subject meets our notability criteria yet. Period, full stop. Sanders may well be a brilliant player, and there are indications that he will be joining the ranks of the professionals - as we've discussed. And he sounds like a good kid. But those facts do not in any way change whether he meets our notability criteria. The question I asked the other day, when I took the time to read through each of those sources and evaluate them, was whether this article on this subject with these references (plus whatever Google News came up with) would meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL. unfortunately, it does not. There's a suggestion that Sanders will be drafted - and if that's the case, great, he now unambiguously meets our criteria. But that has not yet happened and, by rule, we do not speculate as to whether a subject might become notable. Whether another player has an article, and when that player has an article, does not change how this article on this subject with these references is evaluated. Precedent does not work that way - which is what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains. If other articles are inadequately sourced, perhaps they don't meet our criteria either.

I strongly recommend that you take a moment to review our policies on assuming good faith and on civility. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this subject, and it's clear that you've put in a lot of time to make this article the best that it can be. What I'm saying is that the subject is not (yet!) ready to be approved. That doesn't mean that I didn't bother to read what you posted, or that I'm agreeing with a fellow editor just to screw you over. If I disagreed with Sarah, I would have said so, or asked her to re-evaluate. That's how the process works, we look at the references and the facts available and go from there.

Notice also that I did not decline (or even edit) the resubmitted article - if another editor at AFC wants to approve it, they can. And then someone else can nominate it for deletion if they do not believe it meets our criteria. I'm done. If/when Sanders is drafted, there is no question whatsoever that he would meet one of the Notability criteria (being drafted). The draft is what, six weeks away? Less? I suggest you wait. If that's not acceptable, then good luck to you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders is not (yet) notable because he has not been drafted into or played in the NBA or a comparable league overseas, has not won a major award for his play (such as tournament MVP or the like), and has not received widespread nationwide media coverage on his own merits (i.e. not as a result of being part of a team that receives such coverage). Darius Miller seems to have played on the National Championship team, which adds a layer of notability not present with Mr. Sanders - so the comparison is flawed. (The sourcing on the Miller article is lacking, however). The notability of Darius Miller does not in any way change the notability of Rakim Sanders. Now, once Sanders is drafted, or goes to play for a professional team, or receives significant non-local media coverage, an article may be appropriate. Have some patience. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rupert'sscribe. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just a few questions. Callanecc (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Rakim Sanders, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Callanecc (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Raji

OK, I moved the page, and fixed the Reggie Jackson links. (To move a page, you look to the right of the star at the top of the page, and hit that arrow.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mangano Deletion

Thanks for your messages on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Desmond Conner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Rupert'sscribe (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Siyani Chambers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Scout, AAU, Rivals and NABC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Thanks

This user helped promote 2012–13 Harvard Crimson men's basketball team to good article status.

Thanks for your editorial contributions to 2012–13 Harvard Crimson men's basketball team, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zac Stacy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bibb County, SEC and FBS (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) 09:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Stacy page

I undid the move you made on this page due to the fact that he is playing in the NFL. That is the most current thing in his life so it needs to be at the top. MDSanker 02:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ever, it's not me helping you it's sort of you helping me. I wrote most of the page while he was a JR at Vanderbilt. Yes some/most have it at the bottom not all do, a bio really has no true format to hall it is supposed to be. It does not matter to me if it's at the top or bottom. Thanks and have a great weekend. MDSanker 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Desmond Conner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Desmond Conner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond Conner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Siyani Chambers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siyani Chambers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siyani Chambers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Erik Palmer Brown (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SarahStierch (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Rupert'sscribe, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown

Hello Rupert'sscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Erik Palmer Brown".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2014 (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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rupert'sscribe. 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rupert'sscribe. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Boston College–Harvard men's basketball rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boston College–Harvard men's basketball rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston College–Harvard men's basketball rivalry 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.

Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]