Revision as of 06:15, 8 May 2016 editMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,492 edits →License tagging for File:Fast Clip.jpg← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:54, 4 October 2024 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators765,940 edits Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 disestablishments in Montana.Tag: Twinkle | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Can't retire}} | |||
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | ||
<div class="usermessage"> If I have left a message on your talk page, please answer there rather than posting here: I will have put your talk page on my watchlist. Thanks. </div> | <div class="usermessage"> If I have left a message on your talk page, please answer there rather than posting here: I will have put your talk page on my watchlist. Thanks. </div> | ||
<div class="usermessage"> Under no circumstances, edit anything I post to this talk page. This also includes the deletion of any edits you have made if I have responded to them directly. In that case, <s>strike them out</s> instead. Thanks.</div> | <div class="usermessage"> Under no circumstances, edit anything I post to this talk page. This also includes the deletion of any edits you have made if I have responded to them directly. In that case, <s>strike them out</s> instead. Thanks.</div> | ||
<div class="usermessage"> Notice to administrators. Before posting on any matter involving Nyttend and myself, please inform yourself by reading past discussions involving that administrator and myself dating back to October 2013 plus a late January early February 2014 ANI thread. Relevant discussions can be found in my talk archives plus those of Nyttend, Orlady, and Sphilbrick (both here and at Commons). Happy reading.</div> |
<div class="usermessage">I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.</div> | ||
<div class="usermessage"> Notice to administrators. Before posting on any matter involving Nyttend and myself, please inform yourself by reading past discussions involving that administrator and myself dating back to October 2013 plus a late January early February 2014 ANI thread. Relevant discussions can be found in my talk archives plus those of Nyttend, Orlady, and Sphilbrick (both here and at Commons). Happy reading.</div> | |||
<div class="usermessage"> Note to anyone messaging or pinging me- I am on the internet only when I am home and between the hours of 6 am to 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time. My wife gets up at 5 and Monday and Wednesday nights I'm doing activities that sometimes cause me to come online later than my norm. Sometimes I'm around '''a little''' earlier or later than 6 am to 9:30 pm but don't count on it. This kind of message '''shouldn't be needed from any editor''', we are all volunteers here but I've been twice recently been taken to ANI over non responses. Is it against WP policy to get sleep? At least two editors acted like they think it is.</div> | |||
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} | {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} | ||
== |
== Consensus == | ||
]. Reversions are incredibly rude, and unless they're done for a fantastic reason, I don't take to them well. ] (]) 14:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Could you kindly link to the consensus on not listing, naming survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable? Best regards ] (]) 21:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are '''just some of the many discussions'''- | |||
*Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name? | |||
*Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question | |||
*Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203 | |||
*Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_6#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster | |||
*Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors. | |||
Plus see ANI discussions here and here. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved.], is the complaint department really on ] 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:*Just so we are clear, you are absolutely sure that the person who headlines the articles about the accident on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, NBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News should not be mentioned in the article? ] (]) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
::For the 4th time, they don't get named if they don't have an article. {{ping|Ahunt}}, {{ping|Andrewgprout}} please chime in.], is the complaint department really on ] 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes ] is quite right, that is the longstanding consensus. It really all comes down to ] and ]. Cessna 172s crash all the time, as I noted on the AfD, of the 44,000 C-172s built over the last 67 years, probably at least 10,000 of then have been crashed, some more than once. Unless someone notable is involved (with a pre-existing bio on Misplaced Pages), or there is some lasting effect in terms of procedural changes or ], then it is just another crash, one of tens of thousands and not notable. - ] (]) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
== February 2022 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ] (]) 10:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 03:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Well the connection is that people still remembered the crash of the yemenia plane and were still shocked with the crash but however i dont see the connection with Air France 447 too but i guess there is a connection between the yemenia and the crash ] (]) 18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
:See also section links were discussed recently here.], is the complaint department really on ] 19:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
==Syke aircraft shootdown== | |||
WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an articl at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated. ] (]) 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Mjroots}} This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise.], is the complaint department really on ] 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
::By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the article ''after nominating it for deletion'' that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have. ] (]) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::If you're talking this edit, the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Misplaced Pages that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic.], is the complaint department really on ] 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::As you requested, I've raised the issue ''for discussion'' at AfD. Not looking to have you sanctioned, but to clarify this issue. | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
== A beer for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You do good work, and you stand against the horde. I appreciate that. Have this beer on me. <span style="color: red" class="hearts" title="hearts">♥</span>] (]<span style="color: red" class="hearts" title="hearts">♥</span> 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Peapack-Gladstone == | |||
removed ] as a notable in the article for ]. Her article made the connection to the borough and sources are amply available; it took me minutes to address the issue and restore the content. The fact that a source does not perfectly support a fact in an article does not make the fact false nor does it justify the deletion of the material. ] says that you should "fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't", but there has to be some effort to ]. Some of the suggestions include "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" or "Tagging it as necessary". Please try to do this in the future, as ] is exactly that, a policy. ] (]) 18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
*See my edit summary here. You're hardly the person to complain. The same editor who took me to ANI for removing your book spamming. The same editor who reverted an edit of mine thinking blogspot is a reliable source. The editor who thought Abe Vigoda was from Woodland Park. Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up too. Miscommunicating and desperate can describe you besides that edit. Putting references that don't corroborate the sentence is a big problem around here and you're doing it too. Shame on you for coming here to bitch about my editing when you do this shit here. Make a bet there is more work like this in edits here.], is the complaint department really on ] 01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
**For all your tantrum above, demonstrates that the individual is notable and that her connection to ] is backed by a reliable and verifiable source, one that you would have found if you had bothered to fulfill your obligations under ] to make an effort to actually fix the problem instead of butchering it away. You're welcome to bitch and moan with all the what abouts, but here is a case where '''YOU''' blatantly violated Misplaced Pages policy. I will offer another much-needed reminder that ] is exactly that, a policy. Shame on you. ] (]) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
***You put in the same reference not once but twice that didn't say any such thing. If you bothered to read the talk page discussion I linked to this is a major concern of not just me but other people around here. Let's not forget ] where you allowed a major violation of BLP, not to mention the reference not saying any such thing, to stand for six months. You try to own all NJ articles but you disavow all the screwups you or others make. If something is in an article with a reference saying no such thing, it shouldn't be there. Please explain why it should.], is the complaint department really on ] 10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== June 2022 == | |||
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and violating the ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ].</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. ] (]) 04:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
:{{ping|Mifter}} Serious you fail reading comprehension. The article says 53 dead. The garbage reference says 69. '''IN THE HEADLINE'''. If you or anyone else can't see that, you shouldn't be editing here alone be an administrator. This type of garbage referencing is a plague at WP and here is just one case of the many times I have said that. And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors who take this shit out of the article (Check ] out) for proof or these two admins getting on my case for taking shit out of articles. Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote.], is the complaint department really on ] 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
::You take it to ]'s talk page. That's where relevant golf article discussions take place, not the portal.], is the complaint department really on ] 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Another thing that any uninvolved editor can easily see is that if you had been ] and provided a better edit caption, you would not have been blocked. Civility isn't just for other people, it's for you too. It would be easy to provide a series of diff's showing you that most of your edit wars and all of your blocks would not have occurred if you didn't engage other editors with such an unpleasant demeanor. ] (]) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Don't panic. == | |||
::{{editconflict}} I appreciate that you are frustrated, however would again caution you against being uncivil or making personal attacks. I am happy to discuss the rationale for my actions, however incivility and personal attacks are exceptionally damaging to the project and, just as I treat you civilly, I expect the same in return. The block I imposed was for a violation of 3RR ], among other things, that you were uncivil when you addressed the IP on the article's talk page as well as your prior block/warning history for edit warring and civility. To your point about the , I have no stake in the outcome of this dispute, however, in reviewing the substance of the proposed addition prior to my issuing a block (to see, among other things, if a 3RR exception applied), would note that the reference the IP was adding (as well as a I located in a quick search repeating the quote the IP is relying on) stated that "there were still conflicting reports on the number of people aboard the Fokker F-28 and how many people survived the fiery crash" () and "there was still no firm word on the number of people who were aboard the Fokker F-28 jet nor how many people survived" () which, given that the news articles were published contemporaneously with the crash, is not terribly surprising. However, the specific information the IP is relying on (which appears in both their source and the secondary source I located) does not relate to the preliminary reports of the number of dead (which are ]), rather a description of a radio broadcast from "Vice President Alex Ekwueme" about the crash stating that the crashed flight was "flight WT-250". The decision for whether or not the source(s) is/are credible/reliable enough to support including the flight number in the article is one I will leave to you, the IP, any any other editors who may comment, however, on its face I would not consider the sources to be so easily discarded as unreliable or inaccurate to justify simply reverting without discussion (i.e. there is reasonable argument that facts about the flight number are likely to be known prior to a crash and may be accurate in initial reports even if the preliminary number of dead is not). To the other points you raise about prior discussions/other articles, as noted above, my actions here were solely as a result of your 3RR violation and edit-warring on ] and are not meant to be punitive. I was not aware of and did not take into account any specific actions/discussions that may have occurred at other places (excepting that, as noted above, a cursory review showed you have a history of civility/edit warring blocks and warnings). Thank you, ] (]) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
Please remember, WilliamJE, that reverting another editor three times is cause for banning. I highly recommend you make more of an effort to engage in discussion ''before'' blindly reverting, as don't forget, removing sourced, on-topic additions is easily seen as vandalism, irregardless of how right you think you are. Here are the points I will be disagreeing on. | |||
*''Constantly committing ]. In one case like 5 IC from the same source for one paragraph that is all from the same article. | |||
**This is called minor sloppiness left over from an intense round of editing. Frankly, getting picky about this is like reading your student's thesis that took them five months to write, and then failing them because they used a single word too often, or had a few typos. I will re-add these sections and be pickier with citation, but remember, any wiki gnome can fix this. ] (]) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
*''Changing what Dave Hill said in his book. Do you have a copy of Teed Off? I do. The word innocence is not used.'' | |||
**I do believe we're allowed to paraphrase. All I did was re-word your own sloppy paragraph, I didn't "change" what he said by adding a specific quote. | |||
*''Sandra Palmer was never suspended but you created a section header saying just that.'' | |||
**Oh goodness, you're right, it was "probation" for a year, not suspension. Really, you could have changed the name of the subsection instead of removing an entire sourced, relevant, and very well-written section. You baffle me. | |||
*''Your removals in the aftermath section'' | |||
**The aftermath section was filled with random bio facts that were not deleted, but simply moved to her biography, where they belong. I also added a lovely little summary of her 'recent' awards - or did you not notice that the 'aftermath' section was four years old? It was going on about her writing an article about sexuality in LPGA propaganda, how is this related to the ongoing cheating case? It also went on about how she didn't qualify for the hall of fame. If you'd read the recent info I'd added, it makes all that bla bla about not qualifying moot, ''because she was given the award in 2014.'' Anyways, this is the final time I try and pander to your weird reversions before I take you arbitration over it. One little thing you don't like in a large bold addition is not reason to revert 'all' of it. It is, in fact, a bit ridiculous. ] (]) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::btw, I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about keeping all this Bob Toski stuff on the page, though I don't care enough on that point to fight much. I just feel qoutes from people more involved in the whole thing, like lawyers and committee members, would add more and be more relevant than a coach who admitted he'd never seen anything. As far as making that quote that blatantly insinuates he thinks Blalock is insane, I don't remember finding any other evidence in all the articles you found that he was involved in the legal fracas in any way. But again, whatever. I think actually building the ] page into something might be a more productive use of your interest in his narrative. The Toski page is measly as is, and doesn't mention these things at all. ] (]) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::The re-writing of any golf article here at Misplaced Pages doesn't bother me except when one of two things occur- | |||
:::::1- Factual mistakes are inserted into articles. | |||
:::::2- Reliably sourced content is taken out of them. | |||
::::I could form a long list of the factual mistakes I've found and corrected in golf articles. Like Calvin Peete being a migrant farm worker to Dave Stockton making birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship to many more. I have worked with the pro golf tours when I have found mistakes in their records. My user page says WP has the best golf recordkeeping anywhere. It is not all my work or close to it*, Tewapack* has done great service around here as have others. So I don't like mistakes in articles and you've done it more than once. The attitude you show above in pooh pahing the Palmer mistake you made isn't helpful if you want to work with me. | |||
::::As for reliably sourced content, there is too little around Misplaced Pages on anything golf related prior to the Tiger Woods era. Recentism has alot to do with it, as does that finding the history golf tours can be a very trying task*. Kathy Whitworth has won 88 LPGA tournaments more than any other player on that tour but the narrative record of it in her article is so thin it is sad. Why is it thin? There just isn't much written on Whitworth and or it is just very hard to find. Facts about Blalock before or after her LPGA troubles makes her career more detailed whether it is 100% directly related to the controversy or not. The article is partly a biography on her. | |||
::::My user page says I'm particular about making sure an article is reliably sourced and I am but ] is something I have long taken seriously too. You kept committing OVERCITE while I keep saying in my edit summaries that was why I was changing your work. The edit summaries I do is a message. | |||
::::Your adding of detail is great and please add more if you find it, just be careful with the facts (If unsure you can always pop me a message here. I am online as long as I'm home), don't overclutter the article with ICs, and think some more on sourced content in golf articles before removing any of it. | |||
*- Around four years ago, I did the work to create Whitworth's win and playoff boxes. She won 88 times and took part in 28 playoffs. To get those records compiled was incredibly hard. The LPGA Tour by its own admission in the tour's early days used to keep their record keeping in the trunk of somebody's car. | |||
== ANI notice == | |||
*- I try to limit my hornblowing or at least try to. ], is the complaint department really on ] 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
*- Tewapack has had next to nothing to do with the article. Before I created it, I asked for his help on naming it, he didn't give it. Tewapack didn't feel it was worthy of an article. No article on a sports #1 player being suspended for a year which caused a three-year legal battle? Lets say Tewapack and I don't always see eye to eye. | |||
***Note: moving to ] so other people can find it. If you have questions unrelated to the page, happy to continue talking on those topics here if you prefer.] (]) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== question == | |||
== June 2022 == | |||
Hi WilliamJE! I noticed WP:OVERSIGHT is one of your pet peeves, which is fine. However, you're the only person I've ever seen revert changes on that ground alone. Are you sure you want to continue standing firm on that? Seems to me, accuracy and allowing readers to do proper research on the claims we make is more prevalent, in most cases, than saving people the hassle of looking at too many tiny numbers. ] (]) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' indefinitely from editing for contravening Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-hblock --> ] (]) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== J. Fred Johnson, Jr. == | |||
:You are blocked for other reasons as well, including including repeated edit warring, disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment, and signature related disruption. I will not support any unblock request that does not include acceptance of an indefinite 1RR restriction and a rock solid personal promise to never ever make a personal attack on another editor again, and to change your disruptive signature to something utterly uncontroversial. ] (]) 05:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
Hi-the Tennessee General Assembly has a database for their members and found the information about ] and added this to the article-thanks-] (]) 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote>'''The SNG's for sports figures require that they now meet ]. There are no references for this individual, there is trivial coverage in sports databases, but no ] that would lead one to believe they meet GNG.'''</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
== Problem with user 79.74.58.104 == | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Just to let you know WilliamJE, I have sorted out the user 79.74.58.104, who kept posting a personal attack. Completely unacceptable. If he does it again, the personal attack will be reported. | |||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Renaming the ] == | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] | |||
A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
Good morning! When you have a moment, I wanted to ask your opinion. While accurate, the current "Jane Blalock cheating controversy" title is maybe at odds with ] (which recommends avoiding titles that hint at the editors' opinions about the event), and definitely at odds with ] (which reads ''"Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy."'') | |||
I couldn't find an consistent title that the newspapers use to refer to the events, which would simplify things, unfortunately. The first alternatives that popped into my head were "Jane Blalock golf card violation conflict," "1972 LPGA scorecard conflict," and "LPGA vs. Jane Blalock," though I suppose the latter two only refer to part of the article's scope :/ . But wanted to see if you had better luck brainstorming. I assume Tewapack might have input too, though I think you mentioned earlier they weren't interested in picking a name. ] (]) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I don't really have any suggestions. The title was the best I could come up. If someone could come up with something better, {{ping|Tewapack}}, I don't have a problem. Your couple of ideas don't sound any better than the present title, but keep trying. There are other articles with controversy in the title but if we can find a way to remove it and give the article a better name it is fine with me. Would scandal be any better? There has been no worse golf cheating episode, true or false, so far as I know. What happened is just little remembered though I think the wikipedia article may have caused more people to remember it.], is the complaint department really on ] 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
:::THere are indeed other titles with controversy, though I think that's mainly because most people are completely unaware of wp:crits, or the media already gave the event a commonly accepted name. That's my guess at least. I don't think my current ideas are great, but I do think they are better than the current because they fit the guidelines better. Also, I try and avoid scandal, I can loo around but I've run into guidelines that find the word too loaded with connotation. Though I won't move the page until I get at least one other person who concurs on a title. ] (]) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
::::Jane Blalock vs LPGA Tour might be an idea.], is the complaint department really on ] 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hi, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea. It actually would fit the guideline I was just looking through (found diddly squat on ], but ] has some nice tips), which lays out a sort of "when, where, what" structure for an events title that is easily recognized by readers (and the when and where aren't really as relevant with these events as the what, I'd say, so just leaving the "what" descriptor aligns with some of the examples they use). Wonder if it would be weird to use the "vs." if that wasn't how the lawsuit was referred to on the docket, but then it probably was referred to that way. I'll look up some case proceedings, because why not. ] (]) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yep, , except they left the tour part out and spelled out LPGA. Do you think the acronym would be enough for readers? The other seems so long. ] (]) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Checked out ], naming convention seems to be to just use the full docket title. Will move on that grounds, feel free to move to something else if you have inspiration. ] (]) 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Go ahead. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I'm working really hard on my next ebook (My last one was set in the world of the LPGA Tour) and only editing around here during times of writer's block.], is the complaint department really on ] 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
==Um== | |||
<blockquote>'''Crash victim, only one source.'''</blockquote> | |||
You might want to , before I ever touched the page. There is no inline reference. Please revert your reversions, or I really have no choice but to take you to arbitration for disruptive editing. Reversions are not a game, if either of us goes up to three, we could both be banned. ] (]) 12:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Lol, is that no? To arbitration we go. Oh fun. ] (]) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Nothing like this goes straight to Arbcom which tells me how little you know. Two- Do you really want to go that way when I can point somewhere 10 factual errors you have inserted into the two Blalock articles and instances of taking out referenced information. I can name two golf editors who got blocked for ] after I reported them. One of whom is serving the last days of a two-week block for disruptive editng and personal attacks, something you just did before semi-reverting it.], is the complaint department really on ] 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::I never add in facts without a reference, so you'd need to list those "factual errors," if they even are errors. I also never removed relevant sourced information on the page, not once, we just disagree on the definition of "trivial" in some cases. Also, you never responded to my statement above. And no, I'm not considering arbcom if you don't modify your edit, I'm looking at the edit warring dispute page. There are enough incidents over the past month to paint a pretty obvious picture, that you habitually edit war and misuse the revert function. ] (]) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
::::Some of the things you have done | |||
:Change Blalock's win total from 27 to 29. | |||
::the sources backed me up, as you well know. | |||
:Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced. | |||
::Boston was referenced as well in a good source, and I believe was the more recent residence. | |||
:Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official. | |||
::Oops. a mistake. I apologize. | |||
:Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan. | |||
::I assume the source I used was inaccurate. So blame the newspaper. | |||
:Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA. | |||
::Again, this means the source I used was incorrect. Blame the newspaper. | |||
:Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into. | |||
::A mistake, I was confused. You'll noticed I haven't reverted your correction. | |||
::::There's more. That is just what I can think of off the top of my head.], is the complaint department really on ] 13:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Please see ]. Thank you. ] (]) 13:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
== About red links == | |||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Those red links help readers find the way that the articles haven't been created, removing them will confuse readers: | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
{{quote|Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that subject.|]}} | |||
] | |||
:'''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
::You're very conveniently forgetting ] which is a part of that same page you're linking. To quote- | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::'''Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.''' | |||
== Precious anniversary == | |||
:::An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist. | |||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}} | |||
(from the ]) --] (]) 06:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="afd-notice"> | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
::Certain types of redlinks aren't allow. Ones to categories, Main and Further templates, and See also links. There was a talk page discussion on some of that late last year.], is the complaint department really on ] 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::But we always use them on tennis articles, same as before, and nobody except you say that is not OK. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::The same argument used in that talk page discussion too except it was for law articles. It didn't pass muster if you would bother to read it.], is the complaint department really on ] 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Almost all tennis editors accept them. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::Read ].], is the complaint department really on ] 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't what did you mean "the roof". The article says: three men make a tiger. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 23:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It is hard to remove all red links in those tennis articles. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 00:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
I pang other editors to discuss with them. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::You pang what you think will be a friendly audience. This is wikipedia policy. Go to ]'s talk page. That is where a community discussion should take place. Also remember what it reads about category redlinks. It says they should never be made. I warn you- I will take you to ANI if re-add one again. You re-added two last night.], is the complaint department really on ] 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::OK, I have moved the discussion to ]. '''<span class="nowrap">]]</span>''' 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. | |||
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Navigation to categories for alumni by private school == | |||
==April 2016== | |||
Thanks for removing the alumni by private school from "People from Foo" categories since you are quite right that the students many not be from that town (). It's also important to leave some other local parent category so readers can still navigate to the category though. For instance, I just added ] to ] which seems both accurate and helpful. Hopefully you return to editing soon but, in the mean time, I'll do some cleanup here. - ] (]) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. —] <small>]/]</small> 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|RevelationDirect}} - you can note that this user was indef blocked in June 2022 and is no longer here. - ] (]) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
:I feel no need to respond to this till either someone makes a comment on it that I need to address or seondly you properly file an ANI complaint. That it the job of the OP and so far you have failed.], is the complaint department really on ] 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] | |||
A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
{{You've got mail}} | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Also, another thought is if an image was "published" by being publicly displayed... sometimes that works. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
==License tagging for File:Fast Clip.jpg== | |||
] | |||
Thanks for uploading ]. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of ] to indicate this information. | |||
A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ]. | |||
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from ], click on ], then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on ]. Thank you for your cooperation.<!-- User:OrphanBot/untagged-new --> --] (]) 14:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I got it fixed for you. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 03:54, 4 October 2024
If I have left a message on your talk page, please answer there rather than posting here: I will have put your talk page on my watchlist. Thanks. Under no circumstances, edit anything I post to this talk page. This also includes the deletion of any edits you have made if I have responded to them directly. In that case,
Archives |
Consensus
Could you kindly link to the consensus on not listing, naming survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable? Best regards Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-
- Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
- Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
- Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
- Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_6#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
- Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.
Plus see ANI discussions here and here. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just so we are clear, you are absolutely sure that the person who headlines the articles about the accident on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, NBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News should not be mentioned in the article? Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the 4th time, they don't get named if they don't have an article. @Ahunt:, @Andrewgprout: please chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes User:WilliamJE is quite right, that is the longstanding consensus. It really all comes down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Cessna 172s crash all the time, as I noted on the AfD, of the 44,000 C-172s built over the last 67 years, probably at least 10,000 of then have been crashed, some more than once. Unless someone notable is involved (with a pre-existing bio on Misplaced Pages), or there is some lasting effect in terms of procedural changes or Airworthiness Directives, then it is just another crash, one of tens of thousands and not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
Your recent editing history at Bob Goalby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Newspapers established in year cat
Template:Newspapers established in year cat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
AB Aviation Flight 1103
Well the connection is that people still remembered the crash of the yemenia plane and were still shocked with the crash but however i dont see the connection with Air France 447 too but i guess there is a connection between the yemenia and the crash Iyusi766 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- See also section links were discussed recently here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Syke aircraft shootdown
WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an articl at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the article after nominating it for deletion that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you're talking this edit, the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Misplaced Pages that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- As you requested, I've raised the issue for discussion at AfD. Not looking to have you sanctioned, but to clarify this issue.
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
A beer for you!
You do good work, and you stand against the horde. I appreciate that. Have this beer on me. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Peapack-Gladstone
This edit removed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis as a notable in the article for Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey. Her article made the connection to the borough and sources are amply available; it took me minutes to address the issue and restore the content. The fact that a source does not perfectly support a fact in an article does not make the fact false nor does it justify the deletion of the material. WP:PRESERVE says that you should "fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't", but there has to be some effort to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Some of the suggestions include "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" or "Tagging it as necessary". Please try to do this in the future, as Misplaced Pages:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my edit summary here. You're hardly the person to complain. The same editor who took me to ANI for removing your book spamming. The same editor who reverted an edit of mine thinking blogspot is a reliable source. The editor who thought Abe Vigoda was from Woodland Park. Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up too. Miscommunicating and desperate can describe you besides that edit. Putting references that don't corroborate the sentence is a big problem around here and you're doing it too. Shame on you for coming here to bitch about my editing when you do this shit here. Make a bet there is more work like this in edits here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- For all your tantrum above, this edit demonstrates that the individual is notable and that her connection to Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey is backed by a reliable and verifiable source, one that you would have found if you had bothered to fulfill your obligations under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to make an effort to actually fix the problem instead of butchering it away. You're welcome to bitch and moan with all the what abouts, but here is a case where YOU blatantly violated Misplaced Pages policy. I will offer another much-needed reminder that Misplaced Pages:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Shame on you. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You put in the same reference not once but twice that didn't say any such thing. If you bothered to read the talk page discussion I linked to this is a major concern of not just me but other people around here. Let's not forget West Windsor, New Jersey where you allowed a major violation of BLP, not to mention the reference not saying any such thing, to stand for six months. You try to own all NJ articles but you disavow all the screwups you or others make. If something is in an article with a reference saying no such thing, it shouldn't be there. Please explain why it should....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- For all your tantrum above, this edit demonstrates that the individual is notable and that her connection to Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey is backed by a reliable and verifiable source, one that you would have found if you had bothered to fulfill your obligations under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to make an effort to actually fix the problem instead of butchering it away. You're welcome to bitch and moan with all the what abouts, but here is a case where YOU blatantly violated Misplaced Pages policy. I will offer another much-needed reminder that Misplaced Pages:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Shame on you. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nigeria Airways. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Mifter (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mifter: Serious you fail reading comprehension. The article says 53 dead. The garbage reference says 69. IN THE HEADLINE. If you or anyone else can't see that, you shouldn't be editing here alone be an administrator. This type of garbage referencing is a plague at WP and here is just one case of the many times I have said that. And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors who take this shit out of the article (Check Naomi Ishisaka out) for proof or these two admins getting on my case for taking shit out of articles. Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing that any uninvolved editor can easily see is that if you had been WP:CIVIL and provided a better edit caption, you would not have been blocked. Civility isn't just for other people, it's for you too. It would be easy to provide a series of diff's showing you that most of your edit wars and all of your blocks would not have occurred if you didn't engage other editors with such an unpleasant demeanor. Jacona (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I appreciate that you are frustrated, however would again caution you against being uncivil or making personal attacks. I am happy to discuss the rationale for my actions, however incivility and personal attacks are exceptionally damaging to the project and, just as I treat you civilly, I expect the same in return. The block I imposed was for a violation of 3RR taking into account, among other things, that you were uncivil when you addressed the IP on the article's talk page as well as your prior block/warning history for edit warring and civility. To your point about the IP's source, I have no stake in the outcome of this dispute, however, in reviewing the substance of the proposed addition prior to my issuing a block (to see, among other things, if a 3RR exception applied), would note that the reference the IP was adding (as well as a second reference I located in a quick search repeating the quote the IP is relying on) stated that "there were still conflicting reports on the number of people aboard the Fokker F-28 and how many people survived the fiery crash" (IP source with the headline noting "67 people were killed") and "there was still no firm word on the number of people who were aboard the Fokker F-28 jet nor how many people survived" (secondary UPI source I located) which, given that the news articles were published contemporaneously with the crash, is not terribly surprising. However, the specific information the IP is relying on (which appears in both their source and the secondary source I located) does not relate to the preliminary reports of the number of dead (which are likely to be inaccurate), rather a description of a radio broadcast from "Vice President Alex Ekwueme" about the crash stating that the crashed flight was "flight WT-250". The decision for whether or not the source(s) is/are credible/reliable enough to support including the flight number in the article is one I will leave to you, the IP, any any other editors who may comment, however, on its face I would not consider the sources to be so easily discarded as unreliable or inaccurate to justify simply reverting without discussion (i.e. there is reasonable argument that facts about the flight number are likely to be known prior to a crash and may be accurate in initial reports even if the preliminary number of dead is not). To the other points you raise about prior discussions/other articles, as noted above, my actions here were solely as a result of your 3RR violation and edit-warring on Nigeria Airways and are not meant to be punitive. I was not aware of and did not take into account any specific actions/discussions that may have occurred at other places (excepting that, as noted above, a cursory review showed you have a history of civility/edit warring blocks and warnings). Thank you, Mifter Public (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Misplaced Pages's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are blocked for other reasons as well, including including repeated edit warring, disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment, and signature related disruption. I will not support any unblock request that does not include acceptance of an indefinite 1RR restriction and a rock solid personal promise to never ever make a personal attack on another editor again, and to change your disruptive signature to something utterly uncontroversial. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Neil Wilson (baseball)
The article Neil Wilson (baseball) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The SNG's for sports figures require that they now meet the general notability guideline. There are no references for this individual, there is trivial coverage in sports databases, but no significant coverage that would lead one to believe they meet GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1953 disestablishments in Argentina
A tag has been placed on Category:1953 disestablishments in Argentina indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Jose Paala Salazar
The article Jose Paala Salazar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Crash victim, only one source.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1947 disestablishments in Virginia
A tag has been placed on Category:1947 disestablishments in Virginia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Nine years! |
---|
(from the cabal of the outcast) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Neil Wilson (baseball) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neil Wilson (baseball) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neil Wilson (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Star Mississippi 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Navigation to categories for alumni by private school
Thanks for removing the alumni by private school from "People from Foo" categories since you are quite right that the students many not be from that town (example). It's also important to leave some other local parent category so readers can still navigate to the category though. For instance, I just added Category:Sayre School alumni to Category:Education in Lexington, Kentucky which seems both accurate and helpful. Hopefully you return to editing soon but, in the mean time, I'll do some cleanup here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: - you can note that this user was indef blocked in June 2022 and is no longer here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2006 disestablishments in New Hampshire
A tag has been placed on Category:2006 disestablishments in New Hampshire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. AusLondonder (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 disestablishments in Montana
A tag has been placed on Category:2019 disestablishments in Montana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 03:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)