Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 12 January 2015

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Stefan Maierhofer

If I'm in the mood, yes. --Jaellee (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing Honours

Hello! Summer is nearby, so the Snowman should go hide in the mountains. Okay, all jokes aside. I've noticed that you have been on a spree of removing honours. (mostly African and Mexican players. Landon Donavan might have been a coverup.) I would like to know why. I'm not accusing you of anything, but I just noticed a pattern. Non African and Mexican players like Wayne Rooney, Robin van Persie, Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley, Luke Shaw, Miroslav Klose, Robert Lewandowski, Jakub Błaszczykowski, Tim Krul, and etc. are also "unref", but you don't seem to be removing their honours. At first I though you were making good edits, until I noticed the pattern. Once again, I'm not accusing you of anything. I would like to hear back from you. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This message I'm sending is in good faith.

More "unref" honours

• Shinji Kagawa
• Park Chu-young
• Son Heung-min
• Ross Barkley
• André Schürrle
• Gareth Bale
• Neymar
• Keylor Navas

- GoldenBoy25 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)

Since you initiated the discussion regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jamie Paterson, the above-linked proposal may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

‎Shawn Oakman

As I said to Yankees, the article showed nothing of importance; most college football players aren't important, and it put forth the idea that he was just another college football player, not showing anything particularly different. I addressed the notability angle because it would be unhelpful to A7-delete a subject that's clearly notable (if I demonstrate notability without addressing something's importance, it shouldn't be deleted), and I addressed it time and time again because Yankees wouldn't or couldn't understand what a primary source is. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I love how you continue to act like you are right, despite not one person agreeing with you. You're admin candidacy clearly needs to be reviewed and your deletion history definitely needs to be looked at. Because it seems to me like you are the one not understanding sourcing, not me.--Yankees10 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: @Yankees10: guys can we please keep the discussion in one place (User talk:Nyttend#Shawn Oakman or here) and civil? GiantSnowman 17:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote myself. "The article showed nothing of importance; most college football players aren't important, and it put forth the idea that he was just another college football player, not showing anything particularly different". Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: - responding here to keep it in one place - saying this player was a college player was enough to cover the 'importance' aspect. Can you not understand that? You are again confusing 'importance' and 'notability' as seen in your comment that "most college football players aren't important." GiantSnowman 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say that they're all important? Unlike schools, A7 contains no blanket exceptions for people of any sort. When I was in college, I had a couple of dozen acquaintances who were college football players; were all of them important? Even if you want to restrict it to Division 1-A schools, you have 128 schools with approximately 100 players each: are all 12,800 of them ineligible for A7? Only the prominent ones are important, and only the exceptionally prominent ones are notable. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're all important, I'm saying they make a credible claim of importance, or at least one sufficient enough not to meet A7 criteria. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ratking (group)

Hello! Your submission of Ratking (group) 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

QPQ review

This one looks easy; all the sources are in Serbian, so you should just read it through, touch up any English grammar problems (like missing commas), and see if the hook is cited inline. On your review, note if it's new enough (created within 7 days of nomination), long enough (at least 1500 characters), and if a QPQ was done by the nominator. The only thing I would ask the nominator to do is suggest an alternate hook, since this one is rather repetitive. Good luck, Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2015)

The history of Mongolia includes the foundation, expansion, and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century Hello, GiantSnowman. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: History of Mongolia Previous selections: Dishwashing liquid • Skyline Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award you this barnstar in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service for Misplaced Pages's sport related topics Gamemaster twelve (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)