| Revision as of 22:26, 4 September 2022 editIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,430 edits →links to Administrative action review: did not personally support the concept, but for better or worse, it attained consensus support← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:54, 5 September 2022 edit undoRed-tailed hawk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators32,680 edits →Friendly note: friendly noteTags: contentious topics alert New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :::Indeed, it was a convincing demonstration. ] 22:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC) | :::Indeed, it was a convincing demonstration. ] 22:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :::I was not personally a supporter of the concept, but for better or worse, a consensus of those participating in the original discussion was found to support it. ] (]) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) | :::I was not personally a supporter of the concept, but for better or worse, a consensus of those participating in the original discussion was found to support it. ] (]) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| == Friendly note == | |||
| <table class="gs-alert" style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: #E5F8FF; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%; margin-bottom: 1em"><tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>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 the ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose ]—such as ], ], or ]—on editors who do not strictly follow ], expected ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
| For additional information, please see the ]. 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.</td></tr></table><!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --><!-- Template:Gs/alert --> — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 22:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:54, 5 September 2022
Feel free to push my button: Help!
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Single NBA-game players
I randomly picked a name from the list of single NBA-game players to look at the citations. I don't have access to them (I could apply for access to the website used for the citations through the Misplaced Pages Library, though given my level of article editing I'm not sure it would be the best use of resources), but judging from their titles, they sound like routine mentions. Have you looked at any of the player articles in question to double-check the suitability of the citations? isaacl (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: I spot-checked one from each era (so I think that's five or six total) and confirmed that each one had two GNG sources. IIRC in every case the two sources were one from a local newspaper announcing some college-level achievement (trophy/award/tournament win), and a second one a local newspaper announcing that their pro debut (either that they were drafted, are about to debut, or debuted). Levivich 16:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Was there any in-depth coverage of the specific player in those sources? Just by themselves, both of those sound like routine coverage. isaacl (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be GNG sources if they didn't have in-depth coverage of the article subject. IIRC all the sources in my spot check were entirely about the subject. Levivich 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I obtained access through the Misplaced Pages Library to some of the sources (some need a higher level of subscription). I looked at the six players in the 1946–1960 category, in addition to the one spot check I did earlier. Unlike your experience, nearly all of the sources I could access are routine coverage: transactions and game coverage. Some players did not have anything that I would consider suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. Others had what I would consider to be marginally suitable coverage, though perhaps my expectations are too high, being based on modern day coverage. Given that several people in the discussion are shifting from a straight predictor principle to both a predictor and a "need in practice" criterion, I don't know what the best path forward is. Demonstrating that the proposed criteria might not be 100% seems to be something that both sides could use in their favour, and thus not changing anyone's minds. To me "need in practice" is a reason not to argue about it either way (as I said about some of the proposed curling criteria), especially there aren't any more historical players to evaluate, so there should be no problem finding suitable coverage demonstrating that the general notability guideline is satisfied for new NBA players. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be GNG sources if they didn't have in-depth coverage of the article subject. IIRC all the sources in my spot check were entirely about the subject. Levivich 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Was there any in-depth coverage of the specific player in those sources? Just by themselves, both of those sound like routine coverage. isaacl (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Media enquiry
Hi Levivich, I have a journalist who'd be interested in taking you up on your offer re the fundraising emails. Could you drop me an email to my gmail account? The name is the same as my user account here, i.e. Jayen466@ Best, Andreas JN466 11:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
links to Administrative action review
Following up on User talk:Levivich/Archive 3#XRV: did you or User:Joe Roe plan to launch a request for comment discussion? I was reluctant to do so back in June given that the efforts of others seemed more effective than mine in garnering interest. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know but about Joe but I don't plan to. Although if we want to garner more interest in XRV, I can get myself blocked again. :-) Levivich 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- That whole situation firmed up my belief that AN is a better place to handle those reviews. More eyes, rather than a self-selected subset, is better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, it was a convincing demonstration. Levivich 22:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I was not personally a supporter of the concept, but for better or worse, a consensus of those participating in the original discussion was found to support it. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- That whole situation firmed up my belief that AN is a better place to handle those reviews. More eyes, rather than a self-selected subset, is better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Friendly note
 | 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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |