This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) at 13:15, 26 September 2019 (→Pod mod article raised at ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:15, 26 September 2019 by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) (→Pod mod article raised at ANI: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Advocate_(2019_film) and here https://en.wikipedia.org/Advocate_(2019_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.241.152 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Question about Deleting Sandbox
Hi, I was trying my best to make sure the article was notable and neutral. I was only midway through my editing and it was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:CarmHarris/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1n. I realize one page being on wikipedia doesn't ensure that another will meet the standard, but AlgoSec and Ziften have similar posts that read pretty neutral. I have been reading a lot on the guidelines, are my sources not notable enough? I would like to try again. Happy to read your response on the next steps. Thanks! CarmHarris (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- That seems strange. main space article have restrictions on them, such as notability, but your sandbox is supposed to be a place where you can play around all you want. I believe that copyright infringement will get things deleted, though, and I suppose other illegal acts. But notability or non-neutrality should not, as far as I know. Gah4 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Sandbox says that copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content might be deleted from a user sandbox. That makes sense to me. Gah4 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:G11 applies in all namespaces, including user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose so. Hard to say without seeing the page, but since unambiguous is part of WP:G11, it is surprising that OP believes that the problem relates to neutrality. By the way, I don't ordinarily WP:TPS unless someone is already on my watchlist, and the edit summary sounds like something I might know. Gah4 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Restoration of Eugenia Cooney
Apologies for the just-under-one-week delay. Following your decision at deletion review on September 2, I'm here to ask you to restore the deleted content formerly at Eugenia Cooney. If you will, please restore the content at User:Eventhorizon51/eugenia draft. Thanks. Eventhorizon51 17:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
We are murdering Misplaced Pages
I'm a killer, what's your excuse for murdering Misplaced Pages? KillerChihuahua 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Self-loathing, I guess. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Page for KBong (Musician)
Thanks Mr. Smith for your guidance. I will review in detail. My son and I have set up separate accounts, so we would like to keep both. I am contributing to other Misplaced Pages pages. Thank you again. WBong (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- You and your son are perfectly welcome to both have accounts. All that's required is that each of you only use your own account, and both of you also declare on your user page your conflict of interest. There's no requirement that you disclose your personal relationship (i.e. father-son), but both of you should disclose that you are connected to the subject of the article. This is typically done by putting a Template:UserboxCOI on your user page, i.e. something like
{{UserboxCOI|1=Kevin Bong}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Interlink for « Citizens Convention for ecological transition »
Hello. I prepare a correction of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Citizens_convention_for_ecological_transition) - which indeed, is a translation from the French(https://fr.wikipedia.org/Convention_citoyenne_pour_la_transition_%C3%A9cologique).
I precised in the « Talk » section of the Draft that it is a translation. Does it comply with your demand now ? Still, I can't figure how to add an interlink to the French version…
Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.26.58 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your note. There's still some technical issues to be resolved, but I'll fix those up myself and get the article accepted today. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup. I just have seen that the interlink works perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicanteL (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline of: Draft:Parks on the Air - Update
Thank you for quickly reviewing the article and providing excellent help with removing primary sources! I reviewed the references, and yes, many of them were directly involved in the subject of the article you reviewed Draft:Parks on the Air. So, I've done a lot of cleanup (please see the edited history), and I think that it's ready for resubmission (or, at least is very close). If you have some time to give it another quick looksie, I'd appreciate it. :) Thanks Zul32 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK thanks.. I think I'm good with WP:RS for the sources, but the WP:SIGCOV will certainly need to be addressed, so I'll try to cut the number of sources down to 3-4 references as you recommended. I'll do another update when I'm done. Zul32 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not asking that you remove sources from the article. I'm just asking that you list here, or as a comment on the draft, what the three best sources are, to help reviewers like me know what's most important to look at. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- OH! OK, well too late, and it was probably for the better anyway. Now, it's reduced down to seven; more significant articles, which actually now reference the phrase 'parks on the air'. I thought this would probably be better since a generic article that just mentions a park that ham radio operators went to and got on the air wasn't notable enough. So, of the seven in the article, #2 mentions NPOTA, and #5 mentions Canada NPOTA, the rest refers to POTA directly. So, feel free to go to any three you want to look at them. Hope that works. Thanks Zul32 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Aldergrove Star one looks the most on-point to me, but I'm not sure it's enough. My suggestion is to resubmit it and see what the next reviewer has to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Request on 22:53:57, 19 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Emlei
Which part sounds highly promotional and what can I do to improve this?
Emlei (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- You need to disclose your connection with the company, per WP:COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Request on 16:51:43, 20 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rbiweb
https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Landlubber_Jeans I've been told I can't copy and paste text or use copyrighted material even if it is my own. However, I'm not sure where you see a problem. If you will please show me where you found a problem I'd be happy to make corrections.
Rbiweb (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Rbiweb (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Look at the comment I left. Where it says, "See Earwig for some copy-paste issues that need to be fixed", the word Earwig is a link. Click on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Dynamism of a Soccer Player (Boccioni)
I accepted this. You wrote " The only references are to MOMA, i.e. WP:PRIMARY sources. We need WP:SECONDARY sources which talk about the painting." I consider this a misunderstanding. The only primary source that's relevant here is the painting itself. The MOMA catalog information is a reliable secondary source from an unquestionable authoritative institution. It may have some sort ofcoi because it owns the painting, but it is nonetheless universally accepted as the basic reliable source, with the only possible more reliable source a monograph on the artist.. And since it is our practice that any painting collected by a major museum justifies an article,and since MOMA is one of theleading museums famous throught the world, nothing mroe really needs to be shown. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I defer to your better judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| September 25, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~ | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
A brownie for you!
|
For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) |
Pod mod article raised at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)