Jump to content

User talk:Natg 19/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 5    Archive 6    Archive 7 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  ... (up to 100)


Respectively challenge speedy close

Hi Natg_19,

I know you are an Wikipedian with long contribution history and much respect. With WP:AGF I'd like to challenge you speedy close my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019–20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak , which doesn't match any of the 6 criteria of WP:CSK close as speedy keep. Could you educate me? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for the speedy keep is that AfD is the wrong forum for a "fork" request or argument. AfD should be used to delete pages matching these criteria, WP:DEL-REASON. These criteria refer to the content of the article, not the name of the article, which is what you appear to have a problem with. If you have a problem with the page title of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article, this should be discussed in a Move discussion.
Additionally, copying and pasting the contents of one article to another (as you did from 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak) is to be strongly avoided, as page history needs to be preserved in Wikipedia. Natg 19 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for patiently educating me, @Natg 19:, greatly appreciated it! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more question, if people (let's say, me) disagree with a move request closure, is Wikipedia:Move_review the right venue to ask for a second opinion? Just like my question regarding the interpretion of consensus in Special:PermanentLink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)–[reply]
I am not familiar with Move Review, but it does seem to be the correct forum. Please note that the forum gives this disclaimer: "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Natg 19 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Natg 19: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League records (individual)

I wanted to thank you for your work at keeping that article from becoming a violation of WP:NOSTATS. Useight (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conway's Game of Life

Hi, just curious as to why you removed one of the {{redirect}} tags from this page. Did you mean to also change Game of Life to lead to the disambiguation page? Ionmars10 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did both of those changes. I don't believe that "Conway's Game of Life" is the primary topic of "Game of Life", as the board game (The Game of Life) could also be considered as a primary topic. Natg 19 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just wanted to make sure because for some reason when looking at the redirect's history your changes didn't show up for me initially. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Papa Gino's (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Papa Gino's (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Zone episode articles

You asked me "I found you as a member of the Twilight Zone task force. [Are] some these episodes are individually notable? I would assume most of these articles could be merged into the individual season articles."

Wow -- that was a long, long time ago. I created the task force 13 years ago, and my last update was 12 years ago. I've stepped away from most Wikipedia editing, and when it comes to notability guidelines and television episodes, I'm sure there have been discussions, arbitrations, witch hunts, restraining orders, cases of the vapors, and gallons of ink pixels spilled debating and resolving the issue, but I wouldn't even know where to find them.

I do see at WP:EPISODE that "it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." However, in the case of Twilight Zone episodes from the original 1959 series, I think each will be an exception to this rule. The episode I Dream of Genie might be a good example. It's far from one of the most discussed or most popular TZ episodes (I picked it quasi-randomly out of the list of episodes) but there are several secondary sources available. In addition to the DeVoe and Grams books listed on the page as references, it could also cite these as reference, which I've seen on other TZ episode pages:

  • Zicree, Marc Scott (1982). The Twilight Zone Companion (a book I still have on my shelf which I used for reference and knew well when I wore a younger man's clothes).
  • Handlen, Zach (2013.) Twilight Zone: “The Parallel”/“I Dream Of Genie” (One of a full set of episode reviews on AV Club)

And some others I found with quick Googling:

So, assuming that every episode has at least as many secondary sources, and likely many, many more, then based on my 12-year-ago memory of notability, I think each episode should stay as a separate, notable article. If policies have changed, or there's other reasons to keep or delete, I'm not aware of it, so take my meager opinion for what it's worth. – travisl (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts, @Roman Spinner: @Lugnuts:? It seems that you two are more active editors. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the first series may be more notable, but not sure if the 1980s series is as notable as the original series. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist who has been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for fourteen-and-a-half years, I believe that Wikipedia has space and potential for unlimited coverage. Based on that Wiki-worldview, I would support the concept of creating and expanding articles delineating each episode of every television series. Building on that thought, I would thus oppose proposed mergers and / or deletions of individual episode articles, but especially those of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits or Star Trek, all of which I watched on their original runs between 1959 and 1969. Ultimately, however, as we know full well, it is all up to consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not replying earlier. I echo what Roman said about keeping/expanding articles and opposing mergers/deletion. When I first started editing WP many years ago, I was watching episodes from the original TZ for the first time, and expressed an interest in the wiki-project. I did a bit of work related to it back in the day, including adding articles for missing actors. I've not really been involved directly with the episodes for a long time though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE and Richmond Fire Department

Per WP:MERGE, if you are proposing a merger and redirect of Richmond Fire Department, it's your responsibility to appropriately merge information (such as infoboxes) into the appropriate section. I object to a simple redirect, and I disagree with you that there is no relevant information in the article - I believe the fire station picture and list of apparatus/stations are relevant, for example. You may disagree, but if you disagree, it's incumbent on you to gain consensus that disappearing that information into the aether is acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a merger and redirect. I believe this fire department is non-notable and was blanking and redirecting it. I will take this article to AfD, since you disagree with its removal. Natg 19 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you did the work for me, that is fine with me. Natg 19 (talk)


Boowa and Kwala

Thanks for relisting. Of all the stuff I've been involved in / created, this is the one I believe 'deserves' saving. Jasonbarnard (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Dilhara

Hello, I think the deletion tag should be removed from the article, as it has passed the required criteria from other editors. Many of them have already commented with KEEP tag. So, I hope after two weeks of debate, it has to be clear now. I hope that you'll consider about that. Thank you.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not "in charge" of removing deletion tags from an article. The process states that the deletion tag should remain until the articles for deletion process for this article has closed. If it does close as Keep, the deletion tag will be removed. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DisamAssist & Shauna Macdonald

Hello @Natg 19: I was curious how you installed and used DisamAssist. I saw that you used it to disambiguate a link for Macdonald but I'm unsure as to how exactly to install it so I can use it. I've only been on Wikipedia for several months now so I'm still learning. For installation for the disambiguation tool it says to: Just add the following line to your common.js page: 

{{subst:iusc|User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js}}

. My question is how exactly do I enter that on my common.js page. Would it be the following?: 

{{Factfanatic1|User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js}}}

Hi @Factfanatic1:, I didn't install the script this way, but it seems like you would just need to add the line as is: {{subst:iusc|User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js}}. It seems like {{subst:iusc}} is used for installing scripts. Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: How did you install it exactly? Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfanatic1: go to Special:MyPage/common.js, click Edit, add in the line "{{subst:iusc|User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js}}", and click Save. And you should have options for disambiguation under "More" if you are on a dab page. Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"IRIN" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IRIN. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#IRIN until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all the edits you do especially with the Marvel Cinematic Universe LoreMaster22 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2020 American athlete strikes

On 17 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 American athlete strikes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that professional athletes protested by refusing to play in response to high-profile police shootings of Black people in 2020? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 American athlete strikes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting content without notification

Regarding what you did here, I think I see how you may have seen what you were doing as a process-based clean-up. However, the article you obliterated was not the same article that was reviewed at an AfD discussion. The previously-discussed article featured one (insufficient) reference source. The new article that I generated at the correctly-named Roll & Rocker features 10 reference sources. Therefore, it was out-of-process for you to redirect the article without at least further discussion, or at least notifying me of your intentions, don't you think? I spent a good amount of time on creating that improved content, and it feels really dispiriting to have it swept off in a matter of seconds like that. - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AppleBsTime: Sorry for not discussing or notifying you of my revert. Yes, my revert was meant to be a process-based cleanup, as the AfD was closed as redirect, which usually is an alternative to deletion, but implies that the article subject is not notable. I have brought this concern to the AfD closer here, and asked him to review your article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, it appears that you were the only user strongly advocating for a Keep in the AfD discussion. 3 of the participants advocated for a redirect, and one user weakly agreed with you, but also felt that "a redirect would be easier and serve the purpose as well." My change was meant to follow what was determined at the AfD, which is that the Roll & Rocker is not notable for a stand-alone article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBA transfers

After all these years you should know how transactions are handled. It becomes official when the team announces it and you must insert a reference from the team itself and not some gossip spreaders like Wojnarowski or Charania since their reports break WP:RSBREAKING. Please read WP:SPORTSTRANS. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: sorry for the "unofficial reporting". I do understand WP:SPORTSTRANS and have worked on reverting "unofficial" sports transactions in the past. However, the source that I used, though it was from ESPN, was an "official" report (titled "Phoenix Suns complete trade to acquire Chris Paul from Oklahoma City Thunder") with statements from the Suns' and Thunder's general managers, not just "anonymous reporting". I will use official sources from the team websites the next time. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debra Maffett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TNN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Haskell filmography

Nat, if possible, could you please help re-organize, table format, and clean-up the Newley established Peter Haskell filmography? It would mean so much and be greatly appreciated. Thank you!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Agonistes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Agonistes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Agonistes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natg_19/Archive_6&oldid=1073322385"