Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Thank you for the Robert Milasch talk page. Koplimek (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koplimek, your welcome, just doing my bit. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted to say I created the entire County roads in Cass County, North Dakota. I'm curious as to where at on the page you are referring to as "unreferenced". I have sources there, and used the same template that I did for another county road list page, which no one has said it is "unreferenced". I'm not upset, just want to hear your reason for saying "unreferenced", because that one word reason honestly isn't enough for me. Thanks GMoney0805 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)GMoney0805GMoney0805 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GMoney0805, becuase when I proposed the deletion the article was as far as I could tell had no references to back up what the article was claiming, although it is possible that I missed them. If the article is now referenced you are more than welcome to remove it as mentioned in WP:PROD you may remove the notice at any time. Hope that clears it up. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"SSSB, no worries. Yeah right when I published it, there were no references. I did insert some eventually. I appreciate the help. Thanks! GMoney0805 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)GMoney0805GMoney0805 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Your prod justification was "Unrefrenced" [sic]. But doesn't the very first sentence of WP:prod say it is reserved "for uncontroversial deletion"? It seems to me this means prod should be reserved for when you honestly think the topic of the article does not measure up to our inclusion criteria, and no one else, even the article creator, if they thought about it, would disagree the topic did not measure up to our inclusion criteria. If you think that there is any possiility others would disagree with you, it is not eligible for prod.

{{blpprod}} is supposed to be used on BLP articles with no references. A change in policy was introduced, about half a dozen years ago, that BLPs were eligible for deletion, if no references had been supplied, without regard to the individual's actual notability.

Which policy do you think justifies deletion of unreferenced non-BLP articles on notable topics?

The main reason why BLP articles can be nominated for deletion for lack of references, while non-BLP articles can't, is that the unreferenced BLP represents a risk of damaging a real human being. Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: controversial is a relative term. Personally I would consider the deletion of an unreferenced article which isn't extremly notable uncontroversial as there is nothing to suggest notabillity for inclusion nor anything to back up the claims the article makes. Now WP:USRD implies that the content is itself notable, however WP:V states that everything in the namespace must be sourced and that was not the originally the case with this article thus I felt that if it were deleted it would be uncontroversial. SSSB (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if you had been the one who did a web search, to see whether Lionel Birnie measured up to our inclusion criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I don't need to. A7 states an article may be nominated for speedy deletion if the article doesn't state what makes the person notable, at the time of tagging the article consisted of only a short infobox and the article therefore didn't (implicitly or explicitly) state why the person was notable, therefore it was elligable under CSD A7. SSSB (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm very happy when I help you with pages of F1 Grand Prix here on English Wikipedia. For each GP, you have to see more information of FIA document's as notes and penalties from Friday until Sunday. For example, for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, you have to see here for all official document of the event. For every GP, there is a section on site of the FIA called "event & timing information" where we can find all notes. For the future Spanish Grand Prix the same section as here. Best regars :).--79.25.41.16 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@79.25.41.16: thanks, this will be very useful. SSSB (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me some help and an update on the status for the page please? JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamesVilla44, the article is now sourced but it requires significant cleanup. I would be happy to move it back where editors will be able to tidy it up. I will move it back now and start to do some cleanup for you. SSSB (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SSSB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVilla44 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamesVilla44, no problem, just remeber to sign you comments with ~~~~ even if its just a few words. SSSB (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptJayRuffins (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptJayRuffins: what is this about? SSSB (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A comment you added was removed by another editor, just a fyi, forgot the tildes..disregard CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptJayRuffins:, okay, for future reference you don't need to inform anyone about the removal of maintence tags. Just amke sure you include your reasoning in the edit summary if you are removing the tag. Further if you do notify someone about something simply putting in a header is not really helpful. Also remeber to indent your comments as explained at WP:THREAD. SSSB (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you didn't tag this article for CSD/A3 so shortly after I created it, especially when it has a {{in use}} template on there advising against editing or tagging the page since I was actively working on it, furthermore, it was a technical split by consensus, which provides even more reason not to tag it for CSD. Please keep this in mind next time, thanks. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 13:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob3512, firstly, you shouldn't create an article, tag it only with {{in use}} and then publish before moving on, there needs to at least be some content. As for consensus, there was no consensus in favour of an empty article, there was consensus in favour of a completed one which actually had content, besides I havn't the time to go looking around for a consensus, if there is a consensus then you should have put that as your reason for speedy deletion not to be carried out rather than remove the template, which I might add you are not allowed to do on an article you created yourself. What I did follows Wikipedia policy and I did nothing wrong. SSSB (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I should have included something along with that in use tag and shouldn't have removed the CSD tag by myself, but you could have checked the page history and waited for a bit before reinstating the CSD tag as I was editing it. Basically, yes, I didn't create the article perfectly, but you could also have given me some leeway and patience before re tagging it for deletion. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 13:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob3512, I disagree, you should have added content and then added on the talk page that you had added content and therefore it shouldn't have been deleted. SSSB (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback on the article. I posted this article a little prematurely. I am new to the whole editing and and creating page thing. I am doing this for a school project. I am going to add more information and I would like you to review a draft of my article before I post it again.

IamArtVandelay21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamArtVandelay21 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IamArtVandelay21: whilst I am willing to help you I am probably not the best person for job. You are much better off asking for advice at the teahouse (I notice there is a link on your talk page). Now, so long as your next draft follows the guidelines at WP:NPERSON and WP:V it should be kept in the main space, if you think your article does satisfy the guidelines but you are unable to do so in your first draft you are better off creating it in the draft space and then submitting for review (consider using the article wizard to help with this).

However please note that there is already a redirect on James Misson (which is the person for whom you originally created an article) linking to an article where he is already partially covered, therefore you should only create a distinct page for him if you find information on him which would not be relevant on the article where he currently redirects to. It is also important to remeber if you copy and paste from one Wikipedia page to another as part of this it would need to be disclosed (see previous wikilink).

Just be careful when you do finally create the article, there are several reasons why an article may be deleted at any time (see WP:CSD for details) and it may further be proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion, it is therefore important to try and follow Wikipedia's guidelines, most importantly WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:V, WP:NPEOPLE and making sure an article doesn't already exist (CSD A10). Hope this helps, SSSB (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your proposal for the deletion for the article List of United States tornadoes in May 2019 but I do not see a discussion page for it under today's articles for deletion. Should any deletion discussion go on the article's talk page? I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to put it on the afd page since I'm not the nominator. Normally, the template for deletion should only be removed if a discussion reaches a consensus to keep the article, or if the discussion goes at least seven days without a consensus. But if a tornado occurs within that time (which is likely), may I remove the template? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: I proposed for deletion, what you are thinking of is nominating for deletion, there is a difference. Proposed deletion is when an editor voices a concern over an article and the idea being that if the issue is not resolved within 7 days then the article can be deleted, the reason I proposed for deletion is per WP:TOOSOON, at this stage there is no content and therefore the page shouldn't have been created, meaning when a tornado does occur you may remove the tag. Hope this explains it. SSSB (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did jump the gun in creating the article a bit soon. The article will be staying, though, as we are getting the first tornadoes of the month right now. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really jumped the gun nominating this be deleted. No it isn't sourced, --I indicated that will happen in the creation note. Please look at my created articles to see how much chance there is of this not getting sourced. Jacqke (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke: No I didn't jump the gun. WP:V states that all articles must be sourced, it doesn't have exceptions that if the creator acknowledged it was unsourced and promised to add them later, nor that the creator has a history of adding sources later nor that articles are exempt from this at their first iteration. I would in fact say you were lucky that I only proposed for deletion, there are plenty of editors who would have moved it to the draft space instead. You need to make sure every article is sourced at that is your responsibility as the editor who has added content to/created a article and any information which isn't sourced may be removed at any time, (again WP:V). I didnt jump the gun proposing for deletion, I would say you jumped the gun on creating an article before you had the chance to add references. SSSB (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slapping a delete tag on something newly created less than an hour after it was created is aggressive behavior. Yes I could have used draft space. Yes you could have waited to see if the editor was done before moving in for the kill. Jacqke (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke:, aggressive, I think you're the one being aggressive. If your working on it that's fine, but all articles need to be sourced and you should have placed an appropriate tag to say you were working on it. If either of those 2 things were true I would have left it. However I had no idea you were still working on it so I proposed deletion in line with policy. SSSB (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a textbook-example of bite-y tagging and mis-interpretation of policy -- the title easily indicates the subject.
• Also, you are slapping an A7 a single minute after creation and moving stuff to draft-space after 8 minutes. Really?
• This shows that you do not understand our notability policy; a subject is either notable or not and independent of the article-quality. More lack of understanding about our notability guidelines is evident from your handling of Hamari Bahu Silk. Half of the PROD-log is filled with tagging(s) on an assumption of notability being dependent on the current conditions of the article and doesn't exhibit the slightest evidence of an abidance by WP:BEFORE.

• In a nutshell:- you are deleting stuff that is notable by a mile and introducing stuff that's non-notable.

• These three threads are perfect examples of being a jerk -- wrong policy-wise and trying to be condescending, (on top of that), to longstanding users. This is astonishing (to be mild) even if I exclude the bitey tagging. Pathetic communication-skills, to be mildly put.
• To conclude, consider it as a warning to refrain from any further patrolling activities (including but not limited to moving drafts to mainspace, tagging PRODs and CSDs et al) for an undefined period of time, unless you can exhibit your competency. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Winged Blades of Godric ever heard of WP:AGF or WP:BITE. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Give these meta-activities a break and jump into writing quality content. You are making an absolute mess of it over these spheres and on the top of that, not learning from your mistakes, despite being continually pointed by others. Shall you continue, your editing privileges might be affected. ∯WBG^converse 14:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am noting this over your t/p (feel free to delete this or do whatever) for posterity and easy reference, because your post-warning activities does not give me favorable vibes. ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]