User talk:Hariboneagle927/2018/January

Archives

Nomination of Marco Umgeher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marco Umgeher 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/Marco Umgeher 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Simon Greatwich, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GiantSnowman, note that F.C. Meralco Manila has been disbanded today (I cited a reliable source regarding this on the club page itself). Hence it can be safely assumed that the player no longer plays for a defunct club.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide edit summaries and reliable sources to explain your changes to articles. Giant Snowman 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be using the citation I used in the club page to edit the club's players and staff at the time of its dissolution.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Why are you changing the layout again? --Osplace 16:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I find repeating "2017 Premier Volleyball League 1st Season Collegiate Conference" three times for three awards obtained in a single conference as redundant. Is there any norm established for this?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Rappler 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:EDITORIALIZING

Do not add stuff to Wikipedia that "notes" or "remarks" on things. We summarize sources. That is all we do. And we don't make a statement and then go find a source that "proves" it. We summarize what reliable sources actually say. That's it.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rappler, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a footnote to indicate NBM Rappler, one of Rappler's foreign investors, is a joint venture of Rappler Inc. and North Base Media as per page 2 of the SEC decision. Is there a better way to present the fact without WP:EDITORIALIZING.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just say it. But if there are no independent secondary sources discussing that, it is UNDUE to dig into their SEC filing and pull out that one fact. This is what I mean about simply summarizing what reliable (ideally independent, secondary reliable sources) say about something. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for making it clear. I would avoid edit warring. But here's a report from the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Manila Bulletin detailing the breakdown of PDRs issued by Rappler, with the PDI source stating the relations of NBM Rappler to Rappler and North Base Media. The Philippine News Agency also mentions this relations.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Organization of Miss Universe 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organization of Miss Universe 2016 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/Organization of Miss Universe 2016 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. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Coat of Arms of Bulungan.png

Thank you for uploading File:Coat of Arms of Bulungan.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]