Jump to content

User talk:StAnselm/2016a

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     2016a   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  ... (up to 100)


Suresh Perera

I accept that a few people, yourself included, are concerned about the sparse information found in CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI), so WP:CRIC decided to try and obtain extra source info direct from Sri Lanka. As far as I know, the only lead anyone had was a contact that I still have from my past membership of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS). This gentleman worked in Sri Lanka for a number of years at the turn of the century and he is very keen on its cricket. I contacted him to see if he could help and, unfortunately, we got our wires crossed about a limited edition handbook which the ACS published in 2005 and a new edition that is a work in progress. As you and I both know, we cannot use works in progress as sources: they must be published.

That was a couple of weeks ago and, in the meantime, the question has been answered by my ACS contact. Although he was not a member of the ACS in 2005 when the handbook was published, he has been advised by another member that it was published, a limited edition as always. A new edition is proposed but no idea if or when that may be published too. Okay, so this is second- and even third-hand information but the ACS as an organisation is an impeccable source. As such, I believe we should use the information to improve the article but, of course, if someone should eventually discover that the information is incorrect, then we will amend it accordingly as we would any other article. I'm sure you appreciate that there is no difficulty there and that we can only work with what we believe to be correct. Remember too that notability depends on the existence of sources, not on our ability to find them. Equally, although I have not seen this source myself (and it is rare that I cite a source unseen), I am satisfied with the bona fides of my informants as ACS members.

The published edition was called "Sri Lankan Cricketers" (ACS, 2005) and was complementary to other handbooks called "First-class cricket matches played in Sri Lanka" (this was published in 1987 when SL was still a new full ICC member) and an annual series called "Sri Lanka first-class matches in (ccyy)" which covered many years through the 1990s and 2000s. I'm informed that the player handbook confirms Perera's name (Suresh) and date of birth (5 June 1970), plus the fact that he was an off spinner and other details as per CA and CI. It does not, however, say if he was RHB or LHB. I might add, given concerns expressed at the AfD about the reliability of CA and CI, that my ACS contacts have checked the scorecard information in CA and CI against their own versions and have verified it. Where CA and CI have evidently gone wrong on this occasion is that they think Perera is two players, given the seven-year gap between his two matches. They are not perfect, neither are we, but one shared mistake does not reduce their reputations or reliability. They are substantial sources who have for once got some detail incorrect, but fortunately the ACS information provides a fallback if we choose to use it. As you can see, I have chosen to use it because the ACS is arguably, with the exception of Wisden, the most reputable source for general cricket information (CA and CI actually use the ACS as one of their own sources).

By the way, I agree with you that Suresh Perera, the Test player, is the primary topic so happy not to have him disambiguated. Jack | talk page 21:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to use the ACS as a source, but I don't like relying on third-hand accounts of it - that is, you haven't seen it, and your friend hasn't seen it. But that wasn't why I reverted - if the dob relies on that source, it should be referenced directly: either within the brackets or in the infobox. Also, can you get a page number? StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been given a page number and, frankly, I do not wish to bother these people again about this. Page number is optional, anyway. The citation covers everything in the first sentence so it properly belongs at the end but, if you wish, I'll add it after the DOB too.
As I said myself above, I do not like using sources I haven't seen because there is a risk, however small, that they may be disproved later. In this case, because of the intensity of the issues being raised at the AfD (it has escalated to NSPORTS itself with the baseball and football people being dragged into it), Dweller suggested at CRIC that we should seek a Sri Lankan source. My contact in the ACS is not ideal, especially as he refuses to edit WP, but I as an experienced editor with long involvement in cricket writing am satisfied that he is reliable and that we can take this source on trust (similarly, the Sri Lankan newspaper). Normally, we in CRIC would never go to such lengths because the available online sources are usually reliable and certainly adequate. I do agree, however, that citation of CA alone is insufficient (especially in "external links" only!) and I raised this point at CRIC before I ever heard of Perera: editors should find the CI record and cite that too (or vide-versa). If you or someone else should ever find another source, particularly something published in Sri Lanka, that is substantial and proves that the ACS is wrong for once, I will happily amend the article accordingly as I have done on countless occasions previously when a source is shown to be in error. For now, though, the ACS is all we have to go on and, even if it is third-hand on this occasion, it remains a reputable source that has a track record of reliability. Jack | talk page 10:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAGENUM, I don't see that page numbers are optional. StAnselm (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I suggest we move on now unless you can find a Sri Lankan source that has more to say. Good luck if you are inclined to try and find one. Jack | talk page 16:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why metric in Saint Marie (fictional island)?

I undid your first edit because for some reason you removed the link to the BBC page I had put in, then claimed I hadn't put in 'a link at all' with no explanation.

I see you have not undone that again, so there is no problem there, but what do you mean when you say it is appropriate to list the metric measurement first, when it is on an English-language page where the vast majority of readers will use imperial rather than metric? I don't see why both would need to be listed at all, but if they do, then surely the more useful and relevant measurement (imperial) should come first.

Yes, I missed the link in the first edit - I only saw the removal of the square kilometres. Sorry! Anyway, per WP:METRIC, in all non-scientific articles not relating to the US or the UK, "the primary units chosen will be SI units". You could argue that it is related to the UK as a BBC programme, but it is certainly not something to edit war over. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:METRIC article says 'In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... the primary units for distance/​length... are miles.' I would have thought that as a location existing both within a British programme, and indeed within the show as British property, Saint Marie counts as 'relating to the United Kingdom'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. TRC, 9/1/2016

Pranav Dhanawade has been nominated for Did You Know

Census of Quirinius

I don't think you looked at the version you were switching back in, since that version also says that it was the same census (the very same issue you were objecting to), and it additionally presents a POV version of the entire dispute by claiming that there are no satisfactory ways to reconcile any apparent contradictions; and of course that version also uncommented the entire material that PiCo put in arguing his position. I've taken out the line you object to while commenting out PiCo's material until discussion has run its course. Will that be acceptable? GBRV (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, thank you for participation in Wikipedia Asian Month. Please fill out the survey that we use to collect the mailing address. All personal information will be only used for postcard sending and will be deleted immediately after the postcard is sent. If you have any question, you may contact me at Meta. Hope to see you in 2016 edition of Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Thank you

Thank you for your edits to Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851. Quite a learning for me from experienced editors like you. Please give me some advise on how to choose inboxes for cricket articles. How did you choose one info box over another? Is there some article I can read and learn? Also maybe you are wrong about Launceston Racecourse. I noted on the talk page that the Launceston Racecourse's name was changed in 1841 to Launceston Cricket Club Ground. Perhaps you can change the details as you feel correct in the article and in the info box. Thanks StAnselm. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StAnselm again. I do hope you can guide me to some article on how to choose info boxes for cricketing articles. Specially speaking how did you make the choice of one info box over the other for the GA article? That would guide me too. Also given that your edits to the GA article Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 are very significant, I feel you should be credited too as one of the key contributors in ensuring the article adheres to GA standards. I know it might not matter to you much, but if you agree, do please add this article too to your main page as one of your contributed GA articles. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know all that much about infobox templates, and usually put them in to an article by copy and pasting the appropriate template from another article. In this case, I could tell we had the wrong template because it had the subheading "Test series" in the middle of it. I knew we wanted a template for an individual match, so I went to Category:Cricket matches (as it was at the time), looked at the Bicentennial Test article, and used the infobox that was there. (And I got it wrong the first time - I should have previewed my work. I had to change "team1_name" to "team1", etc.)
Thanks for the kind words about credit, but on my user page I only list articles I actually started. StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your inputs on the info boxes are quite helpful. If I am in doubt in the future, I'll try to get any such info boxes peer reviewed by experienced editors like you. Thank you and have a nice weekend. Xender Lourdes (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Orphaned non-free image File:Bud, Not Buddy.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bud, Not Buddy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

DYK for Pranav Dhanawade

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

DYK

Hi StAnselm. Thought I'll leave a note that Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851, which you substantially improved to GA status, is currently featured on the Wikipedia Main page. Thank you for the invaluable editing inputs to the article. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Australian head of state

Howdy. Just to clarify: I'm not trying to get you & Skyring/Pete barred from the topic, nor am I'm trying to be the boss. However, I just want to point out, that if you both were to continue pushing the "We don't know" edits across the articles, if the Rfc ends as monarch is head of state? others might see it as being obstructive. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your comments here were removed. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian head of state

Howdy. Earlier in the Australian HoS Rfc, you mentioned about a possible Canadian head of state dispute article. Just to elaborate - If you were to create such an article and/or begin hiding any mention of the Canadian monarch as Canada's head of state, across Wikipedia? My guess is, you would likely be opposed in that area, by quite a few folks. Anyways, that's up to you :) GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's an interesting question. Because in the lead of the Canada article, it has the (unsourced) statement, "Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II being the head of state". But I don't know why that is there; why doesn't it say "Monarch" or "Sovereign"? So I would be in favour of changing the word there, and not referring to a dispute at all. I would envisage an explanatory footnote at Canada–United Kingdom relations (which IMO should be there anyway, since it says "to include Australia and New Zealand, all of whom already share a head of state with the Canada...") I don't know how much the phrase "head of state" occurs in articles on international relations; it's not in Australia–Canada relations. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canada article has had "head of state" from its earliest edit history in October 2001.[1] Qexigator (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it said head of state, is because the Canadian monarch is head of state. PS - I wasn't endorsing you to make such changes, btw :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that at all, but "monarch" is a more precise term. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Best you open up a discussion there. Be careful though, you don't create the impression that you're attempting such changes on Canadian articles, in order to justify such changes on Australian articles. Your choice, of course :) GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for creating the Canada article would be to consolidate the info at Governor General of Canada#Withering and renaissance and Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. But I always avoid creating articles likely to be nominated for deletion - it is too much work and stress.
Well, here's how I see it. If you succeed in keeping the Australian head of state dispute article intact? Then (IMHO) there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to likewise create an article Canadian head of state dispute, or any other such article for that matter, where you (or anybody else) sees a country's HoS identity as being uncertain. But, that's your choice :) GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes

I know currently you two are having disputes in articles: The Exodus, Daniel (biblical figure), & Census of Quirinius, but please try not to create more issues with PiCo in other articles without first resolving the current ones in those articles. I know or I think I know there are no policies against stalking one's contributions, but I can see a behavioral pattern right after you undid this edit. Please try to refrain from causing more disputes. In truth, both of you should have been blocked for breaking WP:3RR rule, so I highly recommend you try to cooperate and have a general agreement. Also, there is such a thing called RfC and WP:SEEKHELP. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Daniel (biblical figure) and Census or Quirinius shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have just made your fourth revert - I suggest you self-revert, and actually discuss this on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Emily Temple-Wood

Do you really think it was the wisest time to nominate this article for deletion? With Temple-Wood being featured in global media at the moment, including the BBC? Do you not think many people who visit her article will see that you are proving her right about sexism on the project? AusLondonder (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: That StAnselm and others have expressed notability concerns is a reasonable position to take about the article and, on its own, I disagree that this is indicative of sexism. I'm not really concerned about anything StAnselm has said in that discussion, either. I don't personally agree with the conclusions of some folks who support deletion of the article, but we don't prohibit folks from making deletion nominations because of what news organizations decide to do. For what it's worth, Keilana herself also was baffled regarding notability. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Census of Quirinius

Could you help me out with PiCo at Census of Quirinius? He keeps inserting more and more extreme forms of his viewpoint into the article while refusing to discuss anything, and whenever I revert his changes he immediately logs in to revert it back and then threatens to report me (for what exactly, I don't know). GBRV (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article talk page is on my to-do list, and I have some catching up to do there. I notice you had pinged me earlier, but I haven't had time yet to write a substantial reply. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. You wouldn't need to write a substantial reply; reverting PiCo's POV version of the article would help (whenever I do it, he just reverts it back within an hour and then threatens to report me if I revert it again). GBRV (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Biblica logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Biblica logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-directs

I've contacted the administrator who closed the WP:POLITICS Rfc, to get his interpretation concerning re-directs. PS: It's these kinds of edits/reverts, that I hoped would've ended, with the closure of that Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Reginold matanmal". The reason given for Reginold matanmal's block is: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia".

Decline reason: I can't find any sign of this autoblock. Presumably it has expired. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian ethics

Do you have any time to look at Christian ethics? I would even welcome ideas on how to get others interested in it. The article is very important, is in awful shape, but I cannot seem to get anyone knowledgeable about the Bible interested in it. tahc chat 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage people to edit responsibly

On the Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute talk page, User:GoodDay wrote "stop with the personal attacks". I noticed your response was to say "GoodDay, I thought you were going to step back from this article". While I can choose to ignore attacks, not every user has the strength to do so. Many good editors leave Wikipedia, and the site is unfortunately earning a reputation for being anti-women. While, I am sure this was not intended, your comment could be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of uncivil editing. I'll leave it up to you. Travelmite (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was, of course, in response to GoodDay suggesting to Pete that he take a "long break from this article". In any case, I don't think it was a personal attack: statements about stepping back should always be taken at face value. Finally, I don't see how being "anti-women" has anything to do with this: there is no suggestion on the user talk page that GoodDay is a woman. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'll take no action, the personal remarks were against me. GoodDay wrote "stop ...". Although unintended, you edit could be interpreted as diminishing GoodDay's request. I recommend a serious response to any rule issue raised. Travelmite (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100s and 1000s listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 100s and 1000s. Since you had some involvement with the 100s and 1000s redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100's and 1000's listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 100's and 1000's. Since you had some involvement with the 100's and 1000's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I started (in a stub way) the seminary program information on the Frederick Buechner page. I am working from a listing of programs... these seminaries do various things (from the listings I have... I also am emailing the seminaries to get more information) from graduation prizes in Buechner's name to using his books in core curriculum. I want to be true to good wikipedia guidelines... let me know how much sourcing would be appropriate. THANKS for the help. 
VM5577 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly any specific subject studying his works, but not, I think, simply having his books on a reading list. Maybe graduation prizes - I see Luther Seminary has a "Frederick Buechner Prize for Excellence in Preaching" which is "intended to help bring the words, ideas and works of Frederick Buechner to a new generation of clergy, with a particular emphasis on enhancing preaching and writing."[2] StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

It was not intended as edit warring, Wikipedia had a very short breakdown just before and I assumed that the first edit had not been implemented because of the breakdown. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, sure. Thanks for your work. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...
consistency and spirit
... you were recipient
no. 111 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Biblical Review

For your information I have added your latest journal article creation (with a few of my mods) to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals main page and newly created. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

resurrection in Didache

You may be interested to hear that I deleted the reference to the Didache not mentioning Jesus' resurrection. Wade is not a reliable source, and his conclusion is not supported in tertiary sources. In general, I also hope that you approve of my filling out the page with information from RSs. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

... for the emoji (most precise term?) on Beverly Roberts Gaventa.

P.S. What an amazingly prolific editor you on your wide-ranging interests.

-- Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

This user seems to be on a mission. What is the best way to handle this without a huge altercation? — Confession0791 talk 21:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please - on "Joel Chernoff‎"

Hi

I wouldn't normal do this but I am wondering what I can do to improve the article Joel Chernoff‎ to make his notability any clearer. Or do you disagree and think I am wasting my time. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've never had a good feel for music-related notability. The citations in the article don't convince me, but I will try to dig a bit deeper. StAnselm (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not only is he notable, but based on the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music article, Rick Coghill and Lamb are notable as well. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is limited time, and also access to material much of which is in offline published material. I know he is notable and a significant contributer to the Messianic movement. However at least some of the editors envolved (no identifies mentioned) appear to have an anti-messianic agenda. This based on editing history (i.e. of other articles) and also largely non constructive edits to this one. Many technically correct - however this subject matter appears to be being held to a "high bar" when plenty of others don't get this level of attention. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RM on Talk:Racosperma

Hi, I was going to close your RM but you haven't specified where Acacia would be moved. Please reply to my comment on Talk:Racosperma as I am not watching this page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. Frank Tupper page deletion

I note that you marked the page for E. Frank Tupper for speedy deletion which was then carried out almost immediately. I appreciate the reason given and would have been happy to correct the problem, but now the entire page, which took several hours to construct is deleted! The offending portion made up less than half of the information on the page and could have been easily corrected. While I understand your raising a concern, I'm a bit frustrated that all my work was deleted so casually. The page is for a significant figure and Wikipedia should have a page on him. Surely you can understand that Wikipedia is a steep learning curve and try to help improve the page and editors knowledge rather than just deleting the whole page. What can be done to get this page back so I can make corrections and help to improve this website? Tojasonharris (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The admin who deleted the page for you, User: Diannaa, might be able to restore it for your into user space so you can work on it. I appreciate that Wikipedia is a really steep learning curve, but I guess we take a very dim view of copyright violations. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tojasonharris: Thank you for your interest in creating this article. It was deleted as being a copyright violation, so I will not be able to restore it or to move it to a sandbox, because we can't host copyright material anywhere on this wiki, not even temporarily, not even in a sandbox. In addition to the copyright issue, the subject of the article may not be notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for a Wikipedia article. However, I can send you a copy of the deleted article via email if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Yes, if you are able to send me a copy of the article by email, that would be very much appreciated. My email is [REMOVED]. Tojasonharris (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Tojasonharris (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

It looks to me that this edit of yours is contrary to the result of the RfC that was just concluded. There is not much sense in having an RfC if you are going to go on tweaking the article in favor of your POV. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I fully accept that there' won't be a footnote, which is what the RfC was all about. But the fact remains is that there is an uncited claim there. (There is a citation - which doesn't work - presumably intended to show that Deane opened the games; but I don't know if it said anything about in what capacity he did this.) StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is agreed that Deane opened the games, and it is agreed that his name should appear in italics. You are the one who is concerned about the capacity in which he opened the games. If it is a question that also interests the press, surely you can find a newspaper which had something to say about it at the time the Olympics was opened. If it didn't interest the press who covered the Olympics, then how relevant can it be to an article which is ostensibly about the Olympics, and not about the constitution of Australia? EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this article, for instance, which says he did it "as Australia's vice-regal head of state." StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Whatever it is that's concerning you. Would you please bring it to the talkpage, instead of inserting it into the Deane entry? thanks. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm not trying to be the boss there. So, I've asked (at the talkpage) what others think about your wanting a verification tag by Deane's entry. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Federation University Australia logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Federation University Australia logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StAnselm/2016a&oldid=1146546323"