This is BilledMammal's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimiko Ezaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BilledMammal. Please note my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/Geography#Woredas or Districts before making further changes to those articles. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BilledMammal! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wehda Street airstrikes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amrullah Saleh on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fall of Kabul (2001), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 2001 Fall of Kabul, young men lined up to have their beards shaved off? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fall of Kabul (2001)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Belaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean Tatar.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Good afternoon Sir. I have nominated your work at WP:ITN/C Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
On 18 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aukus, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 03:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
You cited this ArbCom case as a reason to believe that INVOLVED applies to anyone who has a "rooted interest" in a topic. This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. ArbCom is not the Supreme Court. They resolve disputes, but their rulings are not binding outside of their specific contexts. They do not create precedents. They do not shape policy. They do not interpret policies in a way that is applicable in any other context. Guidelines and policies are formed entirely from community consensus. And ArbCom does not represent the will of the community in that way. They represent themselves as an alternative and last-ditch method of very specific contextual dispute resolution.
Secondly, you cite WP:NACINV, ignoring the fact that this essay again is entirely about the past tense. If you find a policy/guideline that says an editor should avoid becoming involved in a topic after they close a discussion about it, I would love to read it. Because that would fundamentally change how I interact with the wiki.
Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions in my direction unless you are ready to back an accusation up with policy- and diff-based evidence, on a noticeboard or user talk page. That also applies to @HTGS: Thank you both for respecting my wishes. I mean no disrespect, but it is both unfortunately common, and very much against policy to bring these things up as a "trump card" in discussions such as was done at WP:NCNZ. It was grossly inappropriate and an exact violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not enough to do anything about it, but a warning to the wise. Repeated instances of citing misconduct as a reason to WP:WIN a discussion could be brought to WP:ANI. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable" not "
proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience") of how WP:INVOLVED should be interpreted†.
essay that speaks to the points I raise. In particular, I find
Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure.is of particular interest. To me, this would suggest that current but undisclosed conflicts of interest ("rooting interest", as stated by ARBCOM) are problematic, a conclusion that closely aligns with my personal opinions on the matter. I am willing to take it on faith that you did not have a "rooting interest" when you closed the RM's, but your contribution to the later discussion gives the appearance that you did.
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, BilledMammal,
Thank you for tagging Holy ejaculation for speedy deletion, that needed to go! I saw that you use Twinkle for tagging pages but you didn't post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. Please set up your Preferences to always "Notify page creator". Sometimes this involves checking boxes for all of the different types of CSD criteria. I've heard that Twinkle's default setting is that only a few criteria, like A7 and G11, are checked but a notice has to be posted for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.) tagging that you do. Thank you again for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
hey, BilledMammal, i didn't want to say this on WT:DYK where everyone'll see it, but the reason I asked you to check ALT3f was because we'd went full circle—it was the same as ALT3a. The discussion's archived now—so nothing to worry about really :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
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 Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, You have expressed interests in the E.Europe (The Holocaust) topics -->[1],[2],[3] I would like you to be aware of the below ruling. Happy editing.
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 Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
GizzyCatBella🍁 14:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. I added "part II" to the title of the AE report you've initiated, so that it doesn't mis-direct to the earlier AE report on the same editor. Hope that's alright, with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey BilledMammal. Yesterday, you helped me fix the FAQ on Talk:Killing of David Amess. I recently started Wikipedia:Assassination as a way to help direct this confusion in the future about Wikipedia not calling the murder of a politician an assassination. I haven't posted an essay before, and I am not sure if you have either, but would you mind helping me out? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know this AE has been closed (details here). Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones. . -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social democracy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, BilledMammal. Nableezy previously had a vexatious WP:AE complaint filed against him on 16 October, as you were of course aware at the time you filed the next one on 24 Oct, since you had commented on the earlier case a little more than a week earlier. Withdrawing your own vexatious complaint[4] after it got no traction isn't good enough, nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours for abuse of our processes, and for egregious failure to consider the drain on a user's time and psychic energy that such a one-two of complaints is likely to cause. Please, another time, consider the human behind the username and the effects of your actions on them. Our boards are not intended as tools for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing by the gutta cavat lapidem technique, not even if unintended. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Also, I will post a request for review of this block at WP:ANI. If you wish to comment there, please write below and I'm sure somebody will copypaste it to ANI. Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Maungarei to Maungarei / Mount Wellington. I am fine with it. But are we shifting every Duel name to English and every Māori name to Duel. I mean that is what we are doing, given the old rule and the way the language is shifting I can see how we got here. But how can we know we are being neutral in doing it and not just following my middle aged Pākehā gut feeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushan Jugum (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greeks on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Having two maps with different views (the one I added and the one the RfC is about) is not listed as an option in the RfC question. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello BilledMammal, I was wondering why you were going through and reverting almost every single edit I have made to Wikipedia. This seems to be at odds with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary.
Will you be attending the South African Discord meetup in two hours? Would like to discuss this issue with you there.
I hope you can understand why reverting tons of work can be frustrating especially when no sources or explanation is given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Maddy Dychtwald on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Greetings! Your table made me laugh, and had nothing to do with my retirement. Take care. Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic, so I'm mentioning it on your talk page. I think you keep falling into the trap of "all major characteristics of a topic must be included in the title". But that's not the case and I don't think even you believe that. For example, here you proposed the title "Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike" for an event in which many were killed. No dictionary definition of "missile strike" includes the deaths of humans (and many missile strikes don't kill anyone at all). In fact, plenty of article titles don't convey all major facts about the topic. Consider the frequent "Shooting vs Killing" debate: for example, the title Shooting of Oscar Grant doesn't tell the reader that Oscar Grant was actually killed, so should we rename this to "Killing of Oscar Grant"? Well, if we have a WP:COMMONTITLE (meaning a name preferred by RS that discuss the subject) then we go with that, even if that name doesn't convey all the major facts. VR talk 06:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. It's enjoyable to see that Bastun is still trying to annoy me :) GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, it should be a top-10 least, with editor ranked according to # of posts in the 'survey' section (not including the 'vote' posts). GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Please make a move request in response to a good faith move instead of doing it unilaterally. Present evidence for why it should be moved. I have moved it back in the meantime. Desertambition (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the ARCA you filed has been closed, see here for the Arbitrators' views on the matter. The request has been archived here should you wish to review it in future. The section will be removed from the main ARCA page in 24 hours in accordance with standard procedure. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Todd Ames Hunter on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal statements about users as you did to me at WP:ANI. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou for nominating the article on Hazel Hutcheon for deletion. This is going to be a big task to remove the articles we have on Olympians who no longer meet our inclusion criteria. I am glad to see it has been begun.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to admit some days I fear it will take almost as long for the Olympics RfC to stick as it has for the secondary schools RfC to have impact. That happened in 2017 but it was literally only today that a significant number of articles on secondary schools in Michigan were nominated for deletion. Before today almost all such deletions had been done with schools in India or the Phillipines. With the Olympians we have seen a few articles deleted, but the number of single non-GNG sources articles is staggering. This is a much larger set of articles than we faced with the Tolkien created fictional characters set three years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This is also probably more articles than faced in the cricket debates 2 years ago. Here we have seen an actual change in the default notability criteria. Part of me is thinking that I may for the time being try to focus just on truly marginal American Olympians. I still am surprised that so few have nominated articles for deletion. Although the fact that when one does so this is considered grounds for speaking negative falsehoods against them does not help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I really think that now that we have agreed that not all Olympic competitors are default notable for doing that there needs to be an RfC on cycling notability. It no longer makes sense for other Subject notability guidelines to say all Olympic competitors are default notable. Also, if the Olympics do not confer default notability, does it make sense to say participation in other races that happen annually do. I would think it would be worth trying an RfC and waiting to nominate such an article. I will look at the specific cases in a bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Abraham Mellinger seems a slam dunk deletion case. Back when I would argue against the all Olympic competitors are default notable idea, the 1904 Olympics was the showcase of why this was so. There were just over 600 competitors. Just over 500 from the USA and about 100 from elsewhere, including Canada. Some of the competitions apparently doubled as US championships, lots of tip sports people from Europe did not make these Olympics. Asia, Africa and Latin America were not directly represented, but these games were connected to the World's Fair. So that seems as easy sell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mellinger seems very proposed deletionable. Especially with the whole context of what the 1904 Olympics actually were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mellinger does not seem to be the only person in that event who is not notable. There were 10 competitors, 9 from the USA, bit gold was won by the one non-American. So we have Albert Bechestobill, who lost to the guy who lost as close to the finals as anyone did. We also have Samuel Filler who lost in that extra removed round. Both are sourced only from sports reference and Olympia, which are word for word the same. More telling to me is our articles on these people leave out some crucial details, almost as if they have been written to hide what is going on. Filler represented the Chicago Central YMCA and Bechestobill represented the St. Louis Amerature Athletic Association. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A full 8 1904 Olympic participants were members of the Turners organization in St. Louis. Another was sponsored by such an organization in New Jersey. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet the Turners article says nothing of such organizations sponsoring participants in the 1904 Olympics. Well it also has its current stats from 2011, thus 11 years out of date. I have a sense in its coverage of Olympic related things Wikipedia currently over values bios and under values covering the larger structures that enable these things. Some of this might be personal bios are more popular that writing on the structures and systems. Yet we clearly have way to many sub-stub level bios that have no value. Including the ignoring of sponsoring and affiliation information in sources we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually the winner of the 1904 Olympics was not by some measures Norwegian. He was in 2012 reclassed as Norwegian because he did not actually get US citizenship until 1905, but this means he was a legal resident of the US in 1904 and for several years before this. It seems to basically be a reclassified act that ignores his will. He was sponsored by the Brooklyn Norwegian American Turners organization. So the whole competition was Americans sponsored by various Amature clubs in the US. In fact Illinos, Missouri, New Jersey and New York so far. The Olympics overall were a bit broader, but not this wrestling. Also this shows there were non-German Turners, so our article over emphasizes the German ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
At least 3 different Turners organizations in St. Louis had teams at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. The Tug-o-war winning team at that Olympics represented one of the St. Louis Turners organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I was a little wrong. That team got the silver. The gold went to an organization from Milwaukie. The bronze went to a different team from the same St. Louis Turner organization that the Silver winning team came from. There was one other team in the 1904 Olympic tug-o-war. It was from the New York Athletic club. I have to say in this case I am skeptical that being on a team that won a medal, except maybe a gold medal, would be a sign of notability. Overall I am not sure we should treat team medals the same as individual ones.The 1994 Olympics are an interesting case for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The 1904 Olympics had one competition, the 8 person rowing, with just 2 teams, so no bronze was given. N. M. Smith appears to have been eliminated in the first round of tennis. He was in 3 other non-olympuc competitions at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair the 1904 Olympics were part of, and he only won 1 match in those other competitions. What exactly is the rational for our articles being shorter and less informative than sports reference.com. I think it is bad that we are too close to an IMDb mirror, but the sports reference situation is crazier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Douglass Turner (tennis) is another interesting 1904 case. The repeated source that our article is based on throws out possible birth and death information, and then admits there is no real known connection. This seems to indicate that outside of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair there is no evidence of a Douglass Turner doing tennis at all. I am glad the unfounded possible connection is not in our "article".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If N. M. Smith was from Sri Lanka I might believe that was essentially his full name. Since he was an American I am sure it was not, although he may have used it a lot. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, one more before I go to bed. This is an intriguing case. Stewart Trittle. He was chief of construction at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair. Would this make him notable? I have doubts, and our article neglects mentioning this. He lost every game of tennis he was in, both demonstration and Olympic. It is unclear if he had any background actually playing tennis. Was he just a warm body to fill out the court? Were lots of support and such staff doubling as athletes? John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Before October of last year it seemed some did not care as Ling as we could check " participated in the Olympics". John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. One last one. George Stadel you have to see what they say about him at Olympia. In the singles he was in the only round 1 match and lost. He competed as late as 1922, but seems to have lost Round 1 in basically every match he played.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. This really will be the last. Nathaniel Semple is an intriguing case. We have an obituary for him, or maybe a death notice. It fails to mention his being an Olympic competitor at all. Just mentions he was a medical doctor. Olympia makes statements about advanced medical training in Germany and France. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Simple died only 9 years after the Olympics. He died in the city where the Olympics were held. To use Wikipedia parlance at the time of his death not only do some people not see 1904 Olympic participation as a sign 9f notability, they do not even see it as something that you include in basic bio detail so not even defining. That might be reading too close, but it still is surprising that there is no mention of the Olympics there. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Too be fair that is more a funeral announcement than a true obituary. Still the total non-mention of the Olympic role would seem less surprising if it was from much later and he had a much longer medical career. Here it seems to indicate that the Olympics were not viewed in the same way in the 1910s as they are now in the 2020s. Although from this one data point I cannot tell if this was true of all Olympics, or if 1904 was an especial case, and of course one data point does not tell us very much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I know to edit the area you need a thick skin but still Its a shame that you avoiding the area wikipedia needs a capable editors there. I hope you reconsider. Shrike (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Kia ora - I couldn't help but notice that you've made a lot of recent edits which have removed terms with Māori origins from articles. These terms have distinct meanings from what you've replaced them with, and are commonly used in New Zealand English (which the articles should be using) when referring to those specific topics. Please refrain from making such edits in the future. Turnagra (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The removal of the proposal do delete the article on Aage Rubæk-Nielsen illustrates to me that we need to update other sport notability criteria so they actually stop assuming all Olympians are default notable just for participating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
My biggest worry is that if we leave the redirects with categories intact we will end up with some categories that are all redirects. I am also not convinced it helps to send people to a statement the person competed. Most existing name redirects are to musical groups the person was in or to articles or a production group, writing pair or the like. At least of redirects with a birth year included. Actually almost half of those are to articles about a death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
While I agree the Olympians you are PRODing/AFDing are non-notable, please consider redirection as an alternative to deletion where a suitable target exists. Would also save us the trouble of all of these AfD discussions. Although such redirections have on occasion been revered, there are plenty of cases where they haven't been as well so that would be an easier and more useful solution. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I note from the TP of Lugnuts[6] that you have nominated a lot of their articles for deletion can I please ask that you soft pedal for now? Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
José Pamplona is an example to me of why "medaled with his team", does not seem to always be a reasonable inclusion criteria. He medaled but only actually played in 1 match in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
For the time being I have decided to stop trying to redirect any article created by Lugnuts. I may nominate one for deletion today. I am not sure. Anyway Nikolaos Papanikolaou (athlete) does not even tell us where he was born. Considering how high a percentage of Greeks in the 1930s born before 1922 were born in what is now Turkey before the population exchange, and also how many Greeks moved from Egypt and Bulgaria in the early 1920s as well, this is an especially glaring lack of information point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vision therapy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Henrique Camargo was redirected while I was in the process of creating the AfD nomination. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrique Camargo I explain why this is not at all a good target for redirection. It is a messy situation, maybe made messier by the fact the creator of the article who did this redirecting is Lugnuts, the same editor who a while ago accused me of using someone else as my proxy to nominate lots of articles for deletion, who admitted to deliberately going through a list of the articles I created to pick out ones to nominate for deletion as a revenge action, and who as recently as last week was reverting any attempt I made to change Olympic articles that did not meat the medal level and lacked GNG to redirects as was advised by some other editors. This preemprtive creating of a redirect seems very disruptive, especially since it removes the link from the article to the deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Calling WP:FOOTY a "partisan group" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) is ridiculous, especially without any justification (other than you wanting an excuse to call any keep votes invalid). It's valid to notify a WikiProject, and it'll show up in that project's article alerts anyway, but your language against this WikiProject is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I've started an essay on if administrative units that have the same name as a settlement should be split or not, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. As you can see Hatfield Peverel lists 3 different populations, 1 for just "Hatfield Peverel", one that includes Nounsley and the last that is for the administrative unit. The 1st 2 figures are similar to the Wivenhoe, Tasmania example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow Oaks, Florida in that they are for a settlement not an administrative unit but anyway the settlement and division are combined in 1 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bible on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey there,
I just closed your RM as successful. However, I did not realize, until after the closure, that the destination page is a DAB. Since KaMatsamo/Schoemansdal is clearly not the primary topic, I had to improvise by using a regional disambiguator (Mpumalanga). I hope this expedient solution is acceptable, if not I will undo my closure and reopen the discussion. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:US Census population on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey bro I know how to create a page but I want you to help me on adding a logo I will send you a logo but I want you to add you to the page Feraahub (page) B.matias brown (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Yes on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I pinged you by mistake in my talk page, when I was addressing another editor. I do apologize. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
John Newman (ice hockey) is the type of undersourced with no significant coverage article we have on several people who played with the NHL. It is staggering how many such articles we have in so many sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Howdy. If you wish to inform WP:HOCKEY at their talkpage, what they can & can't do? By all means, do so. Overall, I'd rather avoid a fight between two WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone has messed up your post, at the related ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't recall you being involved in the topic-in-question, in the past. Why are you now? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I know you won't listen to me, because so far you haven't been. But, you're going to be stirring up a hornet's nest. Again, remember I told you so. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Then we have articles like Leonida Pallotta, a footballer with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I am very frustrated at the fact that so many sports articles are allowed to stand just because of SNGs, even at AfD, even when no significant coverage is shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that we allow way too many editors to over and over and over again falsely claim that signficant coverage lacking articles meet the sports SNGs. I am beginning to think we should ban project notification at all on deletion discussions. There is no easy way to counter the cabal of pro-sports table spernanent sub-stub editors who can easily be notified because of the rule allowing the notificaiton of "relevant Wikipedia projects". Whereas there seems to be no allowance for those who want to get rid of sub-stubs to notify eachother about relevant deletion proposals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
why did you do that Votalay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The number of fighters from Albania was very limited compared to the Egyptians, according to historian Trevor Debkewe, as their number was 600. At the highest estimate, compared to more than 95,000 Egyptians, so it is unreasonable to include them, according to the Ottoman archives, the Egyptians numbered more than 99,000. Votalay (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
For this reason, it is unreasonable to include it because the Ottoman army itself had forty thousand fighters from Albania according to Trevor Pin, a military historian and Ottoman archive. Votalay (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey BilledMammal, I find it very strange that you tend to show up on posts I edit frequently. I hope you can see how opposing almost every edit I make can be seen as disheartening and rude. I do not think I am being unreasonable in asking that you slow down and use the talk page.
You recently reversed my edit where I cleaned up Orania, Northern Cape and you added back tons of promotional, superfluous material. I personally think that information works more as a brochure for their white nationalism project more than an encyclopedia entry. You did not elaborate or expand on why you reversed my edit. You said it needed to be reduced but not removed entirely but then proceeded to do none of that. It is clear WP:STONEWALLING and I ask that you respect me as I am respecting you. Desertambition (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you ok with the wording? I was a little disappointed by the WMF response so I thought I'd go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
So I creaed this a deletion nomination of an article that looked like this:
Christopher Campbell | |
---|---|
Born | Dublin, Ireland | 9 December 1908
Died | 1972 (aged 63–64) Dublin, Ireland |
Nationality | Irish |
Occupation | Painter |
Christopher Campbell (9 December 1908 – 1972) was an Irish painter. His work was part of the painting event in the art competition at the 1948 Summer Olympics.[1]
The above is the exact state of the article when I nominated it for deletion. I am now being attacked as somehow violating the overly broad rule against me editing articles related to religion because of some other actions of this person that were not even mentioned in the article, by the very editor who created this stub in the first place. This is very, very frustrating. I am tired of people being able to create druk without any consequences and those of us who try to clean up the druk being mercilessly and constantly attacked. The main point of these attacks seems to be to try to get people to stop AfD nominations totally so that sub-standard articles can remain on Wikipedia without any challenge. This is very, very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am a worker for UsableNet. I saw that UsableNet was deleted from Wikipedia for not having notability. We did not do a great job of updating articles, but we are one of the pioneers in digital accessibility products and have been mentioned and used as a reputable source in the digital accessibility space for 20 years. Here are some articles that mention our report highlighting digital accessibility trends and lawsuits. We are hoping to have our page restored, and do not know if you have the ability to do that. Let us know if you have any questions or if there is anything else you need from us. [1] - UI and Ux trends to follow [2] - ADP Settlement offer framework for future digital accessibility agreements [3] - Discussions on how the accessible legal landscape is changing for retail companies [4] - Our partnership with TCC Global
Let me know if there is anything else you need. Thanks Elijah.Kerr-Brown (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
References
This is an interesting case. When I search for Fernando Huergo I come up with information on a contemporary Jazz musicians in google. I am not sure if he is notable, but if he is he would probably be the primary search term. When I search in google books my first hit is this [7] which is a note about a letter that was either to or from what seems likely to be this Fernando Huergo, but I am not sure I can be sure of this. Also he is in a category for being a Pan American game medalist, but no text in the article itself seems to say anything about that. This source [8] does support that he was part of a team of g from Argentina who got a silver in the 1951 Pan American Games Sabre competition. I am not sure if Silver at the Pan American games is quite enough to be sports notable, but we would still want something more than a bare name in a table which is all I have found so far. I am suspecting there might be some actual in-depth sourcing, but I have not found it yet. I was wondering if you thought you might be able to find some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I have just come across someone at AfD argue we cannot delete the article because there is a rule against deleting long standing redirects (which is about redirects, not articles), and that an article that has existed nearly 2 years is long standing enough that we can only change it into a redirect, and we cannot delete it, except I guess under some extreme circumstances. This is basically proposing a grandfather clause for Wikipedia, even though we have had articles exist since 2005 with no sources at all, so existing, even for overa decade, is not a sign of notability, it is a sign that Wikipedia grow too fast with too little regulartion in 2004-2006 and we have never got a hold on the problems that were seeded in those years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
What exactly was the logic to consider Olympic Medalists notable. I am asking because I just came across Karl Jansen who won a bronze medal in the 1936 Olympics. The article is sourced only to sportsreference.com. I have not done a search to see what else I could find, but I am just wondering if there was any good reason to supposed medalists were actually getting significant coverage, or if it was just a compromise between those who wanted us to actually require signifiacant coverage, and those who wanted to continue having articles on every person in the Olympics ever. I do not think the later adeautely understand that there are far in excess of 150,000 people who were in the Olympics, and before 1988, and even more so before 1965, Olympic rules were designed to exclude professional athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What exactly was the logic to consider Olympic Medalists notable- I think that logic was encyclopaedicity. One can, of course, object to the application of that logic (as I personally do in the case of Nobel Economics winners but not in the case of populated places; YMMV). Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This SPI concerns you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This SPI concerns you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)