User talk:Roleplayer/Archive15

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome and for the invitation to ask you for assistance.

I see you are based in Buckinghamshire. I spent a year in Passenham & often visited Buckingham. I will follow your link into the Buckinghamshire Portal.

I often come into Wikipedia from an online news story. One concern I have is that although these sources may be as valid as newspapers they are more transient. Have you seen any discussion on their acceptability as citation sources? The Citation page notes the quicker decay of online sources but what happens when the source is used and then disappears?

Gowervale (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is a common problem and is covered in full at Wikipedia:Link rot. -- role^player 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is useful. Gowervale (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bug you but I would like to know how to move an article out of my sandbox and into the stream for approval?Michael Kowch (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the safest thing to do is to move it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that someone can assess it for inclusion before it becomes an article proper. To do that add {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article and then move it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/foo (where foo is the name of the article). To move an article hover your mouse over the down arrow next to the search box at the top of your screen, and the word "Move" should appear. Click that, put the new article name into the text box that comes up and then click "Move page".

All you have to do then is to wait until someone reviews your submission. If they agree that it's good enough to become an article they will then move it to article space.

If you need anything else, or need any more information about this process, then don't hesitate to contact me again. -- role^player 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

/* Hello */

Hi i am a new user and made a article in user space.

The below is the link. i hope it works.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dZ8SQWqqmvAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Its019/Taj_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd. taj pharmaceuticals&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Its019/Taj_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd.

Need your comments if the article is good enough or its advertisement.

Wikipedia is such a plce that i have learned allot from this so i dont want it spoil it with some advertisement or anything.

I Have also created a article for skoda owners.. If you can inprove or just have a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Laurin

Please feel free to edit anywhere.

regards,

--Its019 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. I can see that Chzz is already looking after you, and he is a much more able editor than I am, so I shall let him guide you! -- role^player 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jasond1

I've been in your footsteps, watching Jasond1 (talk · contribs). Is he perhaps the Jason Davies running for City Council in Petaluma, CA, and if so, wouldn't his edits be mostly COI? His one edit on Google Fiber is legit and fine. But otherwise, he (or a fan of his) may be promoting his name. I was going to nom his username to be deleted, but I really am not familiar with this process. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The page he created for himself is up for deletion because it doesn't have any content, and even if he does add more content I doubt he's notable enough in order for it to stay. Election candidates for city council do not meet the notability criteria unless there are other factors to take into consideration. And his edits to the Petaluma article were reverted because he is clearly writing about himself. I'm watching these edits and you can too. Unless he posts any dramatically improved content it's fair to remove it fairly quickly. -- role^player 02:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit I'm being somewhat amused by his attempts to get rid of the tag. Still, isn't it WP:COI for him to even be writing about himself in the first place? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. -- role^player 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, off-topic, two of your links above—"Contributions" and "Email me"—are linked up to Master of Puppets (talk · contribs). Thought you should know : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Duly fixed. Guess who I stole it from? -- role^player 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. Mine is a combination of two or three others' profiles, I just don't recall whose. Have a great one! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tochukwu Ipere

Hi. You took this to AfD, nobody came, and the closing admin's verdict was "soft delete but restore on demand as with a PROD". Undeletion has been requested, so I have restored it and am letting you know as I would with a contested PROD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for letting me know. -- role^player 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you -- role^player 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mail robbery

Hello Roleplayer, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mail robbery, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It is not the same as Train robbery. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you for letting me know. -- role^player 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Ryan mirabal

Contest - I don't think I did anything wrong here... how can you call it vandalism when its a constructive article...

Your edit was not constructive, it was vandalism, as evidenced by the information added about the mankini and Stephen Fry. This is a pure BLP violation and should be deleted swiftly. -- role^player 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

lol ok, was looking at the wrong article, was just a bit of fun :) deleted. Andy4789 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

:) 

--Lukestanley (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Holacracy speedy deletion

Seems the deletion was too fast for me to respond to. I can understand why but this is rather unfortunate, I was hoping people, or I later, could cite it and add evidence of it's notability. I'm not trained in Holacracy or anything but I've got some friends that are, and many more that are curious about it. I'm not sure where to find article writeups in the old media about it to cite, I checked Google News and came up blank, maybe that suggests it's not notable yet. May try again another time when I'm less busy. Thanks for sending me the notification. --Lukestanley (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. When you have a moment please do refer to the notability guidelines, that I left a link for on your user talk page. In case you can't find them, here they are again: WP:GNG. -- role^player 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuck YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Iowa Idiots Are A Real Baseball Team!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Signed:

Pėņışmåń ThatrandomPERSAAAN (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The page wasn't deleted because the team doesn't exist, because quite clearly they do - otherwise you wouldn't be writing about them would you? However all subjects on Wikipedia have to satisfy our stringent notability guidelines, and this has to be evidenced using reliable sources. Your article had none of these, and so it was deleted. -- role^player 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Roleplayer! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation request

I am just looking at reducing some of the areas where citations have been requested on the Buckinghamshire page, and one such area is where it states that Milton Keynes is part of Bucks for ceremonial purposes. I can find nothing on a google search that easily verifies that this is the case. Is anyone able to give me a good reference for MK being part of ceremonial Bucks? -- role^player 13:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you are [1] Lozleader (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- role^player 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I'd written an article about a food blog in Belfast, using external references and with (what I thought was) an objective view of the blog.

I understand that entries about websites or blogs are frowned up, but in my note I had explained that this blog was one of the first (and, to be honest, it was the first) food blog from Northern Ireland - a place in which the culture, never mind food culture, has been retarded because of the recent violent history. It represents a big step forward because of this. I know that Northern Ireland is a small consideration in the grand scheme of things, but to us, it's important.

The blog has also run several events to promote local producers and helped publicise local business/charitable initiatives - and was nominated for the Irish Blog Awards in 2010 and 2011, getting shortlisted for the final in 2010.

Given all of this, I thought that the article about this blog would have passed the notability requirements?

I'd really appreciate your help in understanding where I went wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfast-foodie (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand your frustration over the deletion of this article, and I hope I can explain where you perhaps need to make improvements if you are to reintroduce the article again.

The first fundamental requirement of all articles on Wikipedia is references. The references you provided were all other blogs, and therefore were not reliable sources. The golden rule to proving the validity of a subject is that Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You got the significant part right, because the blog entries were about the subject rather than mentioning it in passing. Reliability was a major question though because anyone can start a blog at any time, and their purpose is generally to express an opinion rather than to be objective. Blogs therefore are generally frowned upon as sources and where they are used, should be used in conjunction with other reliable sources.

Also if you are connected with the blog yourself, which your username suggests, then Wikipedia advice is to avoid writing about it. Writing about a subject that you are closely connected with develops a conflict of interest, and this is a problem because you are not necessarily able to be completely objective about the subject in order to write a good article about it.

If you wish to repost the article may I suggest you take a look at Articles for Creation, where new submissions are reviewed for style and content before they go live. Creating your article in this way means that issues such as these can be worked on without the article necessarily being deleted straight away.

I hope this helps. Good luck!

role^player 12:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance - I really appreciate it. In terms of the references, one of them (i.e. Food Belfast) is the food blog of The Anderstown News Group, one of the biggest media groups in Northern Ireland - is this an acceptable reference, given the fact that it's relevant to the sector and has a professional journalistic background/footing? I also have links from food and drink sector websites which promote some of the events that the blog helped to set-up to promote food culture - are these of any use? And for the Conflict of Interest, I've become a registered member and follower of the blog over the last 2 years - I'm certainly a fan of what they're trying to do, but I don't think that this means I'm unduly biased. I really appreciate your time with this Belfast-foodie (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Some blogs are fine, though in most cases should be backed up with other sources. Does the blog itself have significant coverage in the other websites you mention, or is it just mentioned in passing?

Being a fan of a blog for two years does have the potential to make you biased towards it, in my opinion. Try going down the Articles for Creation route, and see where that takes you. It's a good route to take for new users unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- role^player 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

April Ashley

Hi, not disputing your recent cleanup at April Ashley, just wondering which sources were unreliable? Cheers. -- role^player 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to clean-up yet, but of the sources listed, the first two (Unnumbered), 1 through 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are all primarily based on what she has said with no verification. 11 is a 404 error. What alerted me to the problem was her claims of being the first Briton to undergo surgery, which can be disproved as the article for Roberta Cowell has more robust citations than April's article. Granted, April may have thought she was first but then looking at her claims to know John Prescott, alleged affairs she's claimed which have never been substantiated and denied by others involved and other interactions mentioned in linked articles which people are reluctant to verify, it seems she may not be a reliable witness when it comes to her own past. The trouble is, removing those citations then removing uncited claims removes most of the article, and I believe she certainly is notable enough to warrant more than a couple of paragraphs. ~Excesses~ (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I'll store that for looking at when I'm less busy! -- role^player 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

I have declined your speedy deletion of Dope D.O.D.. The article stated that they opened for a major band on their European tour ([Limp Bizkit]]). That's a claim of importance sufficient to pass A7. However, they may still not be notable enough for an article, so feel free to take it to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thank you for letting me know. The page could do with a serious re-write but I don't necessarily think I'm the best person to do it. -- role^player 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cadsden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whiteleaf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bluebaron

I think the warning you gave fell on deaf ears. It's back. -- role^player 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not now it ain't. I've protected it, too. Peridon (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you even a little bit tempted to let the user in question hang themselves with their own stubbornness? I have an evil streak, which is probably why I'm not an administrator! -- role^player 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Point. One re-creation is hardly 'repeated'. You need a bit of an evil streak, to see through the hoaxes and recognise the carefully disguised spam. If you're as pure as the driven snow, you might believe User:BloggsvilleSteel that he had no intention of promoting their new line of cut-throat razors ("greener than throaway blades!!!"). Peridon (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, compared to you I'm a real nice guy, haha. Just don't let them catch you in Saudi-America. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sarah Winman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

When God Was a Rabbit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

IF IT WAS TRUE (IT IS), THEN IT'S CONSTRUCTIVE. ALIMENTARY, MY DEAR WATSON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSutton (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are able to prove that Coleridge had constipation and used enemas using significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it's vandalism, pure and simple. -- role^player 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS MENTIONED IN VOL. 2 ON RICHARD HUGHES' DEFINITIVE BIOGRAPHY OF COLERIDGE, "DARKER REFLECTIONS," on PP. 12-14. THERE IS NO GREATER AUTHORITATIVE BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCE ON COLERIDGE THAN RICHARD HUGHES.James Hercules Sutton 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSutton (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Darker Reflections by Richard Holmes mentions no such thing. It helps if you get the author's name right. Stop being a dick. -- role^player 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have said Holmes (you got me excited). From page 14, "The Surgeon came, went back for Pipe & Syringe & returned & with extreme difficulty & the exertion of his utmost strength injected the latter. Good God!--What a sensation when the obstruction suddenly shot up!" Holmes quotes Coleridge himself, from his Notebooks, 2805. He goes on to say "The humiliation of this experience never left Coleridge." You may not like scatological reference, but this one is pertinent, important and true. --James Hercules Sutton 21:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By golly it does. When you reinsert the reference into the article please make sure you reference the book as :

Holmes, Richard (2011). Coleridge: Darker Reflections. London: HarperCollins. p. 14. ISBN 9780007378821.

Apologies for calling you a dick. -- role^player 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amar Kanwal

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 Amar Kanwal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. role^player 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)