User talk:AusLondonder/Archive 2
Chin up
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| I've noticed your comments about the City of Sin and especially appreciate the pun of your account name. You should come along to a London meetup, where you will find that we are a reasonably convivial crowd and this might cheer you up. Andrew D. (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks User:Andrew Davidson! Really appreciate it, especially a relief to hear that Wikipedians can be convivial! I'll certainly see if I can make one :) AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police 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/Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police 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. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel 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/Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel 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. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A conflict of interest in that his editing seems to be almost all on the subject of Owen Jones, including the deliberate misinterpreting of sources (calling his critics "trolls who obviously never read the book"). See also this in which he parrots Jones' views without any sense of nuance. Imagine writing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion describes the links between the different groups which form World Jewry. It explains their links and their common interest in promoting Zionist ideals, whilst often claiming to serve the public", or similar on Bat Ye'Or's Eurabia book '''tAD''' (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Very disappointed
[edit]User:MarnetteD, I am really shocked and disgusted at the way you reacted to my attempt to seriously and civilly discuss the matter with you. AusLondonder (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:MarnetteD - So you are seriously so inflexible that you cannot repeat your 'answer' (which you removed from your talk page) without ordering me off your talkpage in an aggressive manner? AusLondonder (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
The article Younous Omarjee has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I dream of horses, I realise it is not required, but at WP:BLPPROD, it states nominators should 'Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE).' before proposing deletion. A simple google search would clearly have demonstrated notability AusLondonder (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. My bad. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, I dream of horses! Thanks for your reply :) AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I dream of horses, I realise it is not required, but at WP:BLPPROD, it states nominators should 'Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE).' before proposing deletion. A simple google search would clearly have demonstrated notability AusLondonder (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Youtube personalities
[edit]Hi 
. When you're adding the {{Infobox YouTube personality}} to pages can you please not add date of birth unless it is already present on the article. You've twice now removed a notice saying that Youtube is not a reliable source and that adding a date of birth is not appropriate without supplying one. Additionally, the channel stats should not be exact as 1) it looks messy 2) it's correct for an extremely short amount of time and 3) it's pretty hard to maintain. Rounded figures in millions are more than sufficient. Cheers, Nikthestunned 11:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Nikthestunned. I'm not quite sure what you mean. It makes perfect sense to add the birthdates. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF, which says social media is appropriate for such information. AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't when that information is something lie about often, or want to keep hidden for whatever reason (e.g., their own privacy). Check out WP:BLPPRIVACY for contradictory information to your own in a wikipedia policy (big surprise there). Nikthestunned 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also, a Youtube video is not an appropriate source unless the channel itself is a reliable source, as per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#YouTube. Nikthestunned 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't when that information is something lie about often, or want to keep hidden for whatever reason (e.g., their own privacy). Check out WP:BLPPRIVACY for contradictory information to your own in a wikipedia policy (big surprise there). Nikthestunned 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Nikthestunned. I'm not quite sure what you mean. It makes perfect sense to add the birthdates. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF, which says social media is appropriate for such information. AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Chantal Cauquil has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:Eeekster - did you consider doing a simple Google search? According to WP:BLPPROD, nominators should 'Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE).' Subject is clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's up to you to provide sources and notability has nothing to do with this. Eeekster (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLPPROD, nominators should 'Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE).'AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:Eeekster - did you consider doing a simple Google search? According to WP:BLPPROD, nominators should 'Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE).' Subject is clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion. Please discuss there. --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Nikolaos Moraitis
[edit]On the new page feed I found Nikolaos Moraitis you have him being born in both 1980 and 1957! Which one is it? (Considering the fact that the 2 dates are not even close!) Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ways to improve Niki Albon
[edit]Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. AusLondonder, thanks for creating Niki Albon!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
CFD nominations
[edit]Hi, I am removing your nomination of a NZ category from the WP:CFDS page, as you did not tag the category page with {{cfr-speedy}}, despite a reminder to do so.[1] Feel free to start again. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cuba Solidarity Campaign, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/aims.asp.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
LGBT YouTubers
[edit]There is no rule that every occupational category which happens to have a couple of LGBT people in it automatically gets an "LGBT occupation" subcategory — under WP:CATGRS, we expressly limit that to the specific subset of occupations where the conjunction of LGBTness with the occupation is itself a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right. For instance, Category:LGBT writers is permitted, because their literary output is the genre of LGBT literature — but we conversely don't (and rightly shouldn't) have corresponding categories for "LGBT economists" or "LGBT nuclear physicists", as there's no evidence that the work of LGBT people in those fields is a distinct thing from the work of non-LGBT people in those fields.
As a rule, an LGBT-occupation category is not allowed to exist until you can actually write a full, properly sourced "head article" to support why the intersection is a notable grouping in its own right — if you can't do that, but instead the category is just serving as "people who happen to be two otherwise unrelated things at once", then the category isn't allowed to exist. Wikipedia categories do not exist just to make young people feel good, but are permitted only on WP:DEFINING characteristics. And accordingly, I'm really not all that concerned that it "disappoints" you — I'm willing to reconsider if you can provide actual proof that the intersection of LGBTness with YouTuberness is recognized by reliable sources as being a notable thing in its own right, but the mere fact that there are LGBT YouTubers does not automatically justify the category in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Bearcat, I think to suggest every LGBT writer automatically writes LGBT literature is stereotypical and false. How can you explain LGBT scientists, LGBT sportspeople, LGBT politicians, LGBT physicians, LGBT mobsters, LGBT military personnel, LGBT fashion designers, LGBT diplomats, LGBT directors, LGBT journalists, LGBT judges, LGBT lawyers, LGBT law enforcement workers, LGBT comics creators, LGBT broadcatsers, LGBT businesspeople, LGBT architects etc? Where are the head articles? Do LGBT judges give LGBT judgements? Do LGBT politicians only participate in gay politics?
Applying rules and regulations to the letter is rather disruptive. No need to let me know that you couldn't give a shit about disappointing me. It's patently obvious. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- A book does not have to be about specifically LGBT themes to count as LGBT literature; the fact that it was written by an LGBT writer makes it relevant to the matter of LGBT literature regardless of what it is or isn't about. And an LGBT politician does not have to participate only in "LGBT politics" for their LGBTness to be relevant to their politics — the phenomenon of openly gay politicians being able to get elected to any office whatsoever simply did not exist before 1973, so LGBTness is still automatically noteworthy in and of itself in a politician. In addition to the fact that it's still a comparatively rare phenomenon in the first place, by far the majority of political offices around the world still have yet to be held by their first-ever LGBT incumbent. A person's work doesn't have to be exclusively LGBT-focused, to the point that it fails to have any non-LGBT components at all, to justify an LGBT-occupational category — the intersection just has to be relevant to their notability, not the entire crux of their notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's your opinion, some LGBT make feel insulted to have their work defined by their sexuality, not its quality. The UK has 32 gay MPs in the House of Commons, see it is not relatively rare in the UK. Should all UK MP's be removed? Again, I ask you the about the other categories I have listed. AusLondonder (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- The vast majority of YouTubers are not LGBT, so if being a 'rare phenomenon' is enough, then the category passes. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 5
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements in the Greek bailout referendum, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. 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) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Done AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Endorsements in the Greek bailout referendum, 2015 for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endorsements in the Greek bailout referendum, 2015 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/Endorsements in the Greek bailout referendum, 2015 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. Magioladitis (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Since you're pretty much the only contributor to the article and it used to be a redirect, I thought I'd ask you about this on your talk page instead of making an AfD. Would you be willing to turn Abby Tomlinson back into a redirect, and add the information from it onto the article about Millifandom. This seems like a clear cut WP:BLP1E case to me as all her notability comes from her involvement in Milifandom during the 2015 General election. Bosstopher (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree that WP:BLP1E applies as she has subsequently received other media attention and written for notable publications like The Guardian and the New Statesman and appeared on the BBC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nevermind you're right, I thought the only thing she's been doing is writing news articles (which I don't agree makes her notable), but it looks like she's been getting press attention for stuff like her role in the new labour leaders election. I apologise for being a bit too hasty. Bosstopher (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree that WP:BLP1E applies as she has subsequently received other media attention and written for notable publications like The Guardian and the New Statesman and appeared on the BBC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia Uploads
[edit]I need your advice on how to make a wikipedia page that will not redirect to another wikipedia page.
please help. I will really appreciate it. Zine ntleks (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Zine ntleks. Sorry for the delay in replying. What particular page are you referring to? Once you let me know this, it will be easier for me to assist you AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mongolia–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Tinto. 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) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Done AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ways to improve Commonwealth Lawyers Association
[edit]Hi, I'm Bobtinin. AusLondonder, thanks for creating Commonwealth Lawyers Association!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good work on the Commonwealth Lawyers Association article. This page needs additional references and the references already in place need to be fixed.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Bobtinin (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, I'll see what I can do to improve the article :) AusLondonder (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Extreme Centre: A Warning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Empire. 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) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Done AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 17
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West Frontier. 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) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Done AusLondonder (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (Hard Work: Life in Low-pay Britain) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Hard Work: Life in Low-pay Britain, AusLondonder!
Wikipedia editor Samtar just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice write up :)
To reply, leave a comment on Samtar's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
- Thanks very much User:Samtar :) AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
[edit]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.
- Jennette Arnold
- added a link pointing to Assembly member
- The First Bohemians
- added a link pointing to Frances Wilson
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Done AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of The Racket (book) for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Racket (book) 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/The Racket (book) 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 ) 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:DGG I can only assume this nom is in relation to my justified criticism of you at the Unity deletion nomination? You demonstrated an astounding lack of competence then. In nominating an article that unquestionably meets WP:NBOOK for deletion you are once more demonstrating a worrying lack of competence. AusLondonder (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I saw it on NPP. I didn't look at who wrote the article. I intend to nominate for deletion articles on books which rely on two weak published reviews, but where the article is mainly devoted to quoting unreliable tributes & the publisher's description. Looking at them now, I see many of your articles fall in that category, but I'm going slowly. I've thought for years that a literal interpretation of NBOOK is too low a standard, but haven't tried to change it because there has been in the past been considerable restraint in applying it. I remind you of the rule in WP:N, that meeting the requirement does not oblige us to write an article if the material is better merged. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replyUser:DGG but what you are doing seems rather WP:POINTy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However, please be my guest and nominate any book article you wish. All of your deletion nominations of my book articles have thus far failed. From Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police to Mafia State (book) to City of Sin: London and its vices. I cannot accept that most of the articles I have created use "weak" sources - The Racket uses The Guardian, regarded by most as a highly reliable source. It seems most editors agree with me in my interpretation of WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, to suggest we are at risk of being inundated by book articles is wrong. Hundreds of thousands of books are published annually on a global basis. Comparativley few will meet WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a compromise. Every person at WP has areas they think are overcovered and areas they think are undercovered. This is only partly a matter of the unintended consequence of our rules and is mostly a set of deliberate or implied value judgments about what rules to have and how to interpret them, (and generally they are applied quite inconsistently, depending on chance, or the relative strengths of whoever shows up to argue the individual cases). The only way to accommodate each others special interests are to compromise, and to give everyone a reasonable amount of what they want. I divide my efforts between trying to achieve a reasonable balance everywhere even if it does not accommodate my special interests, with some occasional preference concern for my own special interests, but I've learned not to push them. I don't think you even know what my special interests are, because I try to be as gentle as possible about them.
- As a general matter, Wikipedia is undue structured to emphasise individual articles--partly because of the way in which the Googles highlight them. I think that's unfortunate--an encyclopedia is different from an encyclopedic dictionary, by being not chopped up into little pieces. The logical place to cover a routine book is in the article on the author, unless it is of particular importance. I don't agree with your choices here, but this is a side issue for me to some more critical matters. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 27 August
[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the George Lansbury page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
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) 00:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Abuse of speedy
[edit]Neither 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush nor SeaGlass Carousel fit the speedy deletion criteria. This is disruptive editing, please read WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:E.M.Gregory, I didn't nominate the Route 60 article for speedy deletion. WP:PROD is different to WP:SPEEDY. I believe the Carousel article is suitable for speedy deletion AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Under what criterion? Did you even run WP:BEFORE?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your last edit makes all clear. Your prod of SeaGlass Carousel was mere cover for an aggressive POV agenda: deleting articles on murder committed by Hamas. I do wish you would follow WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I have not, nor have I ever, placed a WP:PROD tag on the Carousel article and your accusations of bad-faith behaviour are completely unacceptable. The Route 60 incident has been nominated for deletion in an open and transparent deletion discussion. No "cover" needed. Given your record of POV-pushing I wear your hilarious insults with pride. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
AFDs
[edit]I assume that you intend to notify all editors who participated in the previous AFD. Not exclusively the nom, who - obviously - agrees with you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to check your own talkpage, you would notice that I notified you. I also notified the page creator and posted a message on the Talkpage of the previous AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, since you could assume that with you actively attempting to delete 2 articles I created, I would notice this AFD, you took the opportunity to notify an editor who would agree with you. In violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't create the Paros rape article, in case you forgot. Yes, you changed it fundamentally, including the title, without even seeking consensus. But you did not create it. I notified all those who participated via the talkpage. No requirement exists to notify each and every participant. Feel free to do so yourself. I notified one who would probably agree and two who wouldn't! Really clasping at straws now. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to check your own talkpage, you would notice that I notified you. I also notified the page creator and posted a message on the Talkpage of the previous AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know why you are WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. But I am asking you to cease.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- What the fuck are you talking about? If you resort to these pathetic diversionary tactics, you know we have a problem. AusLondonder (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I can only assume you are trying to intimidate me and play the man, not the ball. Argue your case without resorting to your usual tactics of false claims of Wikihounding. You are the one repeatedly posting on my talkpage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- By yet again proposing SeaGlass Carousel for deletion (after another editor took the template down), you only make yourself look foolish. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- At your request, I added a source from the other side of the world. Also removed word "new" - to which you objected - from lede. Seriously, though, what you need to to take a deep breath, a walk in the park, maybe ride a carousel. I worry that you're letting Wikiediting mess with your mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- The WP:DATED language was a valid concern as is the promotional style language. Maybe if I'm ever in New York I'll make a trip to your much-vaunted carousel. Although is a carousel ride calming, like meditation? AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- This one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, you are allowed to remove the WP:PROD tag if you wish AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning that. I like to create content, I really don't manage to keep up with the all of the rules.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- By yet again proposing SeaGlass Carousel for deletion (after another editor took the template down), you only make yourself look foolish. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For finding the edits by that vandal who boasted on Reddit. Slashme (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Slashme. I was rather pleased to find those edits and hopefully wipe the smug smirk of the vandal's face! AusLondonder (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I tried to ping you, but sometimes pings do not work. Could you please have a look at what I wrote there? There is no hurry. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead
[edit]You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
[edit] 
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Deletion of For Britain Edit
[edit]Hello AusLondoner, Can you supply your reason for your complete removal of my recent edit? --ThorpeCloud (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ThorpeCloud: Certainly - I reverted your edit because it was far too lengthy and WP:UNDUE for an article of that size. It also gave too much weight to the opinion of Waters and was not reliably sourced to an independent, reliable, secondary source as required. AusLondonder (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Reactions to...
[edit]I recommend you or someone else start a discussion on "Reactions to..." question. I think the threshold is rather obvious: simple and almost unanimous condemnation, condolences, or whatever the trend may be needs to be met with deletion, a selective merge, or at least a completely different outlook on how these pages are written. Without an actual plan in place, I have little choice but to keep nominating these articles for deletion, and thus far participants have agreed with my rationale. Thanks for bringing that category to my attention; articles like this are simply ridiculous and fall under what Wikipedia is not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Reverting of Edits October 2017
[edit]AusLondonder I watch with surprise how someone would just wake up to revert an edit that was fully sourced with 8 valids references, claiming the edit was not sourced and duly promotional. You just have to mention each sentence that was not backed up with a valid source and was promotional. KingMak1 (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Alert and question
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.BTW did you edit under any other account before?--Shrike (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of the discretionary sanctions, thank you. I don't appreciate your loaded question. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- I followed User:Shrike here, and am struck by the question. AusLononder and I met, I think, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape, a sort of baptism-by-fire for me, back when I was still a fairly new and utterly naive editor using a lot of pretty stupid arguments at AfD and making a lot of rookie mistakes. He knew all the right things to say and turned the big guns on me - a memorable encounter. Looking back in the light of Shrike's very pointed question, I am struck by the fact that AusLondonder, who had purportedly only been editing a few months at that point, already knew all the rules, the lingo, and the way to intimidate a newbie. @Shrike:, you do understand that there is little point to this unless you have some idea under what name AusLondonder previously edited. He might merely be a very quick learner. Nevertheless, AusLondonder, I think you should be able to give Shrike a straight answer to the question: Did you edit under any other account before?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- I really have no obligation to even engage with this ridiculous fishing expedition. Your disingenuous misrepresentation of the discuss on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape is really outrageous and truly typical for you. You seem to have a real problem with the truth, E.M.Gregory. You suggest that you were a "newbie" at the AfD discussion but you had been editing for more than six months longer than me. You say I "knew all the right things to say and turned the big guns on me" but my argument was just WP:NOTNEWS and failure of WP:GNG but I lost the AfD and you won! I've gone back and completely read the AfD and I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. If I said all the right things and you made "rookie errors" why did only one editor agree with me? I'm guessing this is part of your tried and tested tactic of flinging enough mud and hoping some will stick. But it is not going to work with me, buddy. So, E.M.Gregory. How come you had so much experience and learnt so fast after you joined? What was your previous account? AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources?
[edit]May I ask your credentials to edit a political piece on a British politician. Are you Austrian as your handle suggests? If so, may I ask what qualifies you to edit entries on Wikipedia on the British and their politics.
Secondary sources? This is truly a nonsense if ever I heard it. A politician is in the business of politics. They make their living from it. They have nothing to hide, what they are is their product. If you would rather hear the views of a right wing politician from secondary sources (which happens to be heavily left biased) you get all sorts of opinions which do not represent the person. What is the reasoning for prioritising secondary sources? Can you explain?
Andrew
Ahg196 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ahg196: I am sorry you think our policies on sources are "nonsense". Unfortunately your personal opinion on sourcing requirements doesn't really matter. The reason you think everybody and everything is "left biased" is because you have your own (evidently very strong) political biases. Finally, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and not a Brexit fansite and I am certain I am an awful lot more qualified as an editor than yourself. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I know my personal opinion doesn't matter, but I will still express my opinion that your system is a nonsense. If you have a section titled political views, surely taking the person's actual statements about what they believe is more valid than a third party's opinion on their beliefs? If it doesn't, then BLP's should be ignored on Wikipedia as being pure propaganda.
I have not mentioned my views on the EU referendum, and for you to bring them up is concerning. Would it change your mind if I had voted remain? I am not interested in rubbishing anyone, I just feel they deserve a fair hearing. As a publication which prides itself in impartiality, Wikipedia and this editors like you who decide what goes and what doesn't, must at least hear out what people have to say.
Since my complaint, I found this article which explains a lot. I expect you'll tell me it's not a credible source - probably because it criticises Wikipedia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle
- FrontPage Magazine doesn't seem like a reliable source. It is effectively a blog published by two political activists. I'm surprised you think having neutral, non-promotional biographies of notable people is "a nonsense". This isn't a left/right issue, by the way. Our sourcing policies apply project-wide. What specifically do you think should be added to Waters' bio? AusLondonder (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Tobias socks
[edit]Since you seem to patrol the moves pages, if you come across more Tobias socks please mark for attention at the SPI or do let me know. Named socks can be reported directly at meta for global locking (he's globally banned). His disruption extends to Commons, Wikidata, de etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: No worries, will do. AusLondonder (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
WiR December highlights
[edit]  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Look over a Maoism related article?
[edit]Hi! Long story short, I have a student that has created the Maoist Theory of National Struggle article. His first drafts of this were a little too much in the WP:ESSAY territory and had some other issues that you can read about here, if you like. (It's basically the history of the editing of the page and is more related to image issues at first.)
I saw that you edited the article on Maoism recently and your edit suggested that you're familiar with the topic area. I'm not really familiar with Maoism enough to know if this is something that would warrant its own article or not. The article seems to look good, but I do really want to have input from someone more familiar with Maoism. I'd be incredibly grateful if you could look it over! Another reason that I wanted to reach out to you is that I seem to remember that you're not a staunch deletionist. I don't want student work to be kept if it doesn't benefit Wikipedia, but I also don't really want an automatic knee jerk reaction, if that makes sense. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, AusLondonder. 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)
Deletion discussion about Murder of Janie Perrin
[edit]Hello, AusLondonder,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Murder of Janie Perrin should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Janie Perrin .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
[edit].jpg) .jpg) 
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Anne Marie waters
[edit]Hi.
I am concerned that conservatives like AMW are being misrepresented by Wikipedia. I wonder if you can tell me why you think my edit is not impartial, given I have quoted AMW, ratger than someone else writing about her. If someone came to get an opinion of your political views, would you rather they asked you directly, or asked say me, who knows very little about you? This is what the Wikipedia entry for AMW is like. Lazy, heavily left leaning, and making no attempt whatsoever to hear what the real person has to say
Whether you know it or not, you have the power to censor the truth. You can claim that edits such as mine are being inaccurate or biased, but before you do, why not actually read what Ms. Waters has to say for herself? Go to Breitbart.com and read her articles. Listen to the Delingpole podcast interview with her. And then come back and tell me, with a straight face, that the Wikipedia entry isn't the most awful leftist propaganda.
Left or right, you have to acknowledge truth of an individual comes from their mouth, and no other.
Please also look up conservative, far right, democrat and British culture and values, to familiarise yourself with the claims
Andrew Ahg196 (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Ahg196. Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Per WP:WPNOTRS we also work mainly on the basis of secondary, and not primary, sources. Per WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources" may be used in some contexts, but not if it is unduly self-serving or makes an exceptional claim. If Anne Marie Waters claims in an article she authored about herself that she is not an "anti-Islam activist" that seems to me both unduly self-serving and an exceptional claim, not supported by both her history of political activity and by reliable sources. Breitbart is not regarded as a reliable source at all. I cannot see how you would believe her article is "leftist propaganda", perhaps your own bias is showing? AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
AusLondoner - you seem to make a habit of altering items that don't fit your personal political views ? Not very helpful.
I stand by every single word I typed about Lady Nugee (AKA 'Emily Thornberry'). Please put them back and don't remove valid additions by British-born observers of the hypocritical side of British politics. Accurate123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate123 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Feburary 2018 at Women in Red
[edit].jpg)   New:
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red
[edit] 
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Another Daily Mail RfC
[edit]There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) MEPs has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) MEPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
May 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Wikimania scholarship application for SA and SADC
[edit]The South African Wikimedia chapter is awarding a limited number of full and partial scholarships to attend Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town to SADC and South African based Wikimedians. The due date for applications is 30 May. You can get more information by clicking here. Don't waste time APPLY NOW! (Google docs form provided by WMZA) 20:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Defence agencies of the European Union
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Category:Defence agencies of the European Union requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpbT go beyond 16:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Betsie Verwoerd kleur.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Betsie Verwoerd kleur.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Capacity Building Workshop
[edit]Wikimedia South Africa will be hosting Asaf Bartov from the Wikimedia Foundation for 5 days where he will be conducting a series of Capacity Building Workshops in Johannesburg and Cape Town. The workshops are aimed at addressing challenges faced by African Wikimedians and share tools that will enable them to better increase African content. In Johannesburg the workshops will take place on 25 - 26 May 2018 at the Goethe Institut, and in Cape Town Asaf will be meeting Wikimedians on 29 May 2018. Come and join us either in Johannesburg or Cape Town, we can pay for your travel to attend in either of these cities. You can click here to see more information or you can contact info@wikimedia.org.za. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC), delivered on behalf of Bobbyshabangu
Women in Red June Editathons
[edit]
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) 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/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) 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. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Application for WikiIndaba Steering Committee Open
[edit]The due date for applying to be part of the WikiIndaba steering committee (WISCom) is this Friday the 22nd. Apply now and be part of the African Wikimedia Movement. (Message from Bobbyshabangu 10:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
July 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
John Iadarola
[edit]Per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination) as Iadarola's career has grown, I have added additional sources covering his primary hosting of "True North" and "The Damage Report" series with additional non TYT sources. This is in addition to his daily hosting duties on the TYT main show. I have reactivated the article to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
August 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Elkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Mid-Coast Council
[edit]Your recent edit to Mid-Coast Council is missing the reference "PMHC". You might like to fix that. Regards. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Category:Female critics of feminism has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Female critics of feminism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TM 20:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angus Taylor (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Sydney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!
[edit].svg)
Greetings!
You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.
This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.
Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!
If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding writing my first article on Wikipedia
[edit]How I write a good article on Wikipedia. Especially how to add references. Suppose I have read around 7-8 articles on any topic and then I wrote this in my own word. Then in that case if I add only 1-2 in-text citation and all references or I need to follow something different strategy. Please guide I am eagerly waiting to write first article which would be accepted in my first attempt. PRABHAKAR.S (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @PRABHAKAR.S:, thanks for the question. Wikipedia:Your first article is a good first point of reference for advice on how to write a first article. You can also submit your article for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, to help ensure it is not subject to deletion. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. AusLondonder (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I got the global city rankings from global city
[edit]The Global Power City Index from Tokyo from 2017 has London 1st. I have not been following Brexit negotiations closely and don't know how much decline of London a year of that has caused, maybe it's more than I'd guess? All I know is Theresa said negotiations stalled and if a breakthrough doesn't happen in some months it'll be a very disruptive hard Brexit. I'm not suggesting any city or pair of cities is as far ahead of the next one as Victorian London or New York of c.1953, that'll probably never happen again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sagittarian Milky Way: Thanks for your reply and clarification. The Global Power City Index seems to me a rather subjective and biased index. Indeed as I understood it we were discussing power and importance of respective cities not things like their environment or accessibility nor their attractiveness to artists or managers. According to that index, neither Moscow nor Beijing even feature in the top ten global cities, which seems inexplicable. However, I appreciate you do have a basis for what you wrote and I'm happy to clarify I certainly intended no hard feelings towards you. AusLondonder (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch, I didn't notice the weird methodology. At any rate the GaWC_study ranking next one down puts New York and London in the top tier but hasn't published since 2016(?), presumably Brexit would decrease London's degree of integration with the world economy that this ranking is most concerned about. Also the study is British. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
October 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!
[edit]Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Country Winners
- Diversity winner
- High quality contributors
- Gender-gap fillers
- Page improvers
- Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
Get ready for November with Women in Red!
[edit]
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Resolved
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Kyiv-Pasazhyrskyi railway station a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 01:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @TheDragonFire300: The page history doesn't seem to support this allegation of out-of-process moving. AusLondonder (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, not for you. Don't ask about this warning; it may have resulted from the G6'ing of the article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penrith, New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penrith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Australia's head of state, again
[edit]Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened, concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, AusLondonder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, AusLondonder. 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)
December 2018 at Women in Red
[edit]
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
The article The City: London and the Global Power of Finance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
January 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
 January events:
|
February 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
 February events:
|
March 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
   Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
|
Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019 at Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of 2018 West Footscray warehouse fire for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 West Footscray warehouse fire 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/2018 West Footscray warehouse fire 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. Stephen 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events with WIR
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Venezuela solidarity activists has been nominated for discussion
[edit]Category:Venezuela solidarity activists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
- Another editor started the CFD, but I thought you should be notified of the discussion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)