Rhadow

Hello, Rhadow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dakleman (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for prompt and thorough review. You explained your reasoning and led by example. It seems, based on the ten most recent changes, that the article I used as an example was also woefully flawed. I get it now. It is easier to be a critical reviewer than a content creator. The article still has the the dreaded {{stub}}. Rhadow (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I don't often deal with the creative output of others, so I took stabs at reducing my engineering criticism tone. Wikipedia editors are expected to be both reviewer and creator. Many of my own contributions get massaged or rewritten. It's this way of collaborative editing that the articles eventually have the voice of the community. If you are trying to roll out a large new article, one option is to draft it in User name space until it is ready to be moved into the main article namespace. That way, you don't get marked up for {{stub}} and {{citation needed}} before your i's are dotted and your t's crossed. Dakleman (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea, publishing the first stab in a user name space. My result was an imperfect article for less than a day. Now it is one that I am proud of (if I'd had the ability to insert the correct pdf file, or the sense not to include it at all). Let's see how it evolves as more news rolls in. Rhadow (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rhadow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Arrivo for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I have removed the prod tag you placed on L. Dinaparna as the player passes cricket notability criteria.

All the best. Bobo. 18:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bobo -- I am sorry I intruded. It seemed unlikely to me that a person could be notable if we don't know his name. Best Regards Rhadow (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do not worry. One of the reasons we have notability criteria for cricket and other sporting categories is that every player who has reached a certain level is treated equally. The only reason we are not aware of some players' names is due to lack of available secondary sources. These will, no doubt, appear in time. Bobo. 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello user:WilliamJE -- You wrote: Don't use IMDb as a source. Great advice, but I see articles where IMDB is the only source. Supreme Court decision articles are singled out by bots for not having any references at all.

There are a number of fields in which editors are simply copying and pasting lists (of players, for example) from a single database source. In cricket, it's espncrinfo.com. One source and one source only. I had a discussion with a cricket fan. He said a guy whose first name no one knows (only his initial) and played in one match meets their standard for notability. Wow.

In other fields, the standards are rigidly enforced. I get tagged for using bold type. "It's a form of POV," says my interlocutor. How would you propose that the various communities (Projects) do a better job to normalize what constitutes notable and suitably referenced? Rhadow (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

IMDB for a listing of what Actor X did work on is about all I'd use that DB for. Imdb isn't reliable at all for biographical details, education, family, interests, that kind of thing.

One cricket match. There is the baseball equivalent. If a player makes even just one appearance in the majors, he is deemed notable.

The Golf WikiProject doesn't think every tournament played on the majors golf tours demands an article. The Tennis WikiProject thinks all of them do, and that there need to be sub articles for Men, Women, Doubles etc etc. One tournament can have five or six articles on it.

The Tennis WikiProject has had for years this habit of putting in main template links even though that explicitly violates WP:REDNOT. They say- Oh the article is coming up. I can point to dozens of tennis articles that had those wrong links for 5 or more years till I removed them.

Every WikiProject doing everything the same way is a great goal. It is just never going to happen around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

In this case, the problem with the YouTube clip is that it's a recording of a media clip posted to his own YouTube channel. But one of our WP:COPYRIGHT rules is that we're not allowed to link to sources that are mirroring copyrighted content but aren't themselves the holder of the copyright — which means that link isn't acceptable anywhere. If it were possible to find the original video on the website of the television station that ran it, then we could use that instead, but we can't link to a YouTube repost of it because we're still liable for contributory copyright infringement. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bearcat -- That's a logical response. Thanks. I had to trim other dead links last week. When the last remaining reference (albanianarts.com) goes away, so will Ramadan. But that's the way it goes, I guess. Rhadow (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for spotting this one and PRODing it. I removed the problem material, added a source, and added a short section with some biographical info. It had gotten quite a bit out of hand since I had last edited or visited it, so I'm glad you marked it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I removed your prod on Systems architect. The link you claimed this to be a copy from clearly stated that they got their text from us rather than vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw you prodded the Wimbledon Line enhancement programme with the summary that it was a copy and paste from a TfL webpage. Such webpages are copyrighted and so the article was a copyright violation, which should be nominated for speedy deletion (criterion G12) rather than prodded. I've deleted this article, so don't worry about it - this is just a general note for your future reference. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I dePRODed Assistant parish priest, then moved it to a correct spelling before transforming it into a redirect to Vicar. That's the quickest way to deal with it in my opinion. I also mentioned on TJW's talk page, but I left the reverend father some tips. Feel free to ping me if you need any additional help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tony -- Assistant parish priest was the small issue. The good rev had apparently written a piece about himself, too. Someone else dinged that one. He deleted the notification on his talk page, but he history is still there. Thanks Rhadow (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deleting notifications on your talk page isn't an issue: anyone can do it. We just take it as acknowledgement that they got the message.

I'm aware of the other issues too. Hopefully my message will redirect them to help with things such as updating our page on the founder of his order or even help raise Padre Pio, one of their most significant saints to GA. I don't have too much hope, but if he has access to any of the Capuchin archives it would actually be quite helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tony -- It sounds like you have the matter well in hand. I shall graciously retire. Rhadow (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating Rock Hill Academy, Rhadow!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added tags on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and completed this nomination for you. For whatever reason, you accidentally created the debate at the talk page rather than at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Group, Civil Air Patrol. So I moved your nomination over and made a note - everything else was fine. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hello UltraExactZZ -- I followed the AfD instructions (all three steps), but the delete page wp:Articles_for_deletion/New_York_City_Group,_Civil_Air_Patrol came blank. When I saw you had deleted the AfD notice on the article talk page, I was mighty confused. I am better now. Thanks. Rhadow (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Science Daily does mention it, but it is not the focus of the article. I think you are correct and that the 'Mission Statement' section should be replaced with outreach history and maybe mentioned there. Similar to the Institute for Quantum Computing. I have not had a chance to do research/writing for this yet. Overall I believe that PQI is notable enough in the Pittsburgh area to justify a contribution on Wikipedia. For comparison I looked for similar articles (eg Georgia Tech Quantum Institute).

I appreciate your suggestions on how to improve my first major contribution VioletVulpine (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I watched a fight over BioCom go for two weeks. It is arguably the most successful regional biotech group in the country. Its article was trashed. It's frustrating, I know. A baseball player plays one inning of pro ball and he's in WP forever. Seventy quantum physicists? Oh, no. Keep at it. Rhadow (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the 'mission statement' section after reading through the guidelines you linked. I think I can do better by listing some of the outreach events from the past. VioletVulpine (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rhadow, thank you for your reviews on the pages I created recently. With regard to World Finance, I noticed that a page has been created, World_News_Media, perhaps you'd like to weigh-in with your opinion of this page, given that the source and structure of the page are similar to World Finance (now deleted). I'm not sure why this page is more meritorious than the ones I have created. Many thanks, AmazingCheque81 (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello AmazingCheque81 -- World_News_Media just survived an AfD. In my opinion it is not a good article. It is a COATRACK. WNW is a publisher. The details of World Finance are extraneous at best. That's just an excuse to list all the vanity awards. WNW as a company is probably not long for this world anyway. Rhadow (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow, may I asked why you've put proposed deletion template on the Sticky pad article? Can you explain reasoning behind "trivial definition" mentioned in the template? In my opinion, even physics behind how this thing function is not trivial (I would even speculate that it's not yet fully understood). --Ajgorhoe (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The physics are not in dispute. See Friction#Coefficient_of_friction. As a basis for a new article in WP, I hardly think a single article in Boat Galley qualifies. That's my opinion. It hasn't changed since I put the tag on the article. But it gets better every time you edit it. Rhadow (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a remark, physics behind this is far more complex than what is currently covered by Friction article (I truly hope Wikipedia will soon offer better coverage of this). When you put the tag, article did not have any citations. It was clearly work in progress and it will probably remain such for long time. I completely agree with you about insufficiency of sources (if that's what you have meant). Help on adding more and better would be great. If they are not there yet, this does not mean article should be deleted, it means it should be improved and reliable sources should be added. If it turned impossible to find proper sources, this would potentially qualify the article for deletion. Thanks for adding reference section and template, that was constructive. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, there was no under construction tag on the article. Every revision of an article needs to stand on its own. Otherwise, the response to every tag would be "clearly a 'work in progress' and will be for some time". That doesn't work for me. If it isn't done, leave it in your sandbox. When it is ready for prime time, then move it to the mainspace. I'm only trying to help here. WP comes before you in the help line, though. Rhadow (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article was marked with stub template. Adding other templates would make no sense because I was working on the article. Putting stub in mainspace enables other contributors work on it (which many times happens very soon and works well - Wikipedia is a collaborative project). --Ajgorhoe (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Your interference causes me some problems due to edit conflicts (on this and Microsuction tape article). Could you refrain from editing the article for 2 hours or so? Some questions: where did you obtain information that microsuction is neologism by Henkel? Is that reliable information? In your opinion, would it be more appropriate to use micro-suction instead of microsuction? It would be nice if you add clarification about naming to the article. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ajgorhoe -- Microsuction does not appear in available dictionaries. Micro-suction was a registered trademark found in uspto.gov. A simple Google search will find you Sewell microsuction tape. I won't mess with you or your articles today. Rhadow (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answers. I didn't find the registered trademark info. Can you provide a link (maybe we'd better move this discussion to article's talk page so it helps future contributors)? I'm still trying to disentangle arguments stated in deletion tag. Article has nothing to do with commercial promotion. My intention was to describe the concept (like in Screw, for example), not a particular product of a particular company. Short information on related applications, products, producers, tratemarks, etc., would be helpful, and I thing it would be very good for the article if you add it, as it seems you have some overview (my interest and knowledge here are more in technical aspects).

Your prod concern for Kırstın™ was invalid and so I removed the prod. Kırstın™ is a stylized title of Kirstin Maldonado. I have redirected it as appropriate. Next time, please also be sure to leave a note on the talk page of the user when you PROD their work, especially if it is a newly created article because the creator will object almost all of the time. Thanks, menaechmi (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello menaechmi -- You are right. Thanks. Now tell me this, please, how does a reader type Kırstın™ into Google? Rhadow (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I mean, that is a perfectly good question that I don't know the answer to. The wonderful editors at WP:RFD might have a better answer if you wanted to nominate it for deletion there (or perhaps ask on the talk page?). menaechmi (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been considering opening an SPI case as those listed in the connected-contributors on the article talk page are likely the same person. I've not seen proper votes by multiple SPA accounts at the AfD yet though, so maybe not worthwhile... —PaleoNeonate – 14:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello PaleoNeonate -- You are right. None of them voted. And they are all SPAs. Rhadow (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming it's about this article. Have you tried filing a report at WP:BLPN? Alex Shih^Talk 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Alex Shih -- How did you guess? Now I have. Many thanks. Rhadow (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't difficult. Both accounts are now warned again. One of these two accounts is probably abusing multiple accounts. I might open a SPI tomorrow if I have time. Alex Shih^Talk 17:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Alex Shih -- They are back at it. And I got slapped for stepping in the wrong way. Rhadow (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alex Shih:, thanks for your efforts. I had thought of going to ANI as I think there are multiple problems – but BLP may be better. In my mind, this is a CIR problem. And yes, perhaps SPI. I think the page might benefit from brief protection for a time, and/or a post-1932 pol warning with 1RR, albeit this is a minor public figure and perhaps that's overkill. Just throwing out some thoughts. BTW, one of the editors has threatened to turn you into admins.:) One must have a sense of humor on the political pages. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Objective3000 -- What do they say? A girl has to know her limitations. Rhadow (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hah. You saved me from going to the drama boards -- which I hate doing. Objective3000 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Objective3000: There is no need to go to AN/I for this. I've opened the SPI if you guys have time to contribute, I am hoping to uncover the sockfarm if there is one so that less time can be spent on this. Alex Shih^Talk 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex Shih and Rhadow, page Dan Huberty was on my watchlist and a user that has had a ban is back putting on that youtube video as per the talk page, from what I've read it hasn't been agreed that this is allowed. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 23:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry ignore this, I checked his history of edits and he was making a lot of them to different politician pages that weren't helpful so reported user instead. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your use of the proposed deletion process seems improper. That process states that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." You should expect opposition to such nominations when the topic is a substantial topic like Albemarle Settlements or Polar regions of Earth. And now that I have observed your behaviour, I can promise you such opposition. Note also that, per WP:PRODNOM, the process expects you to "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion." Such nominations do not have a valid reason as a simple lack of sources is not enough; that's why these articles have survived so long in this state. Andrew D. (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andrew D. -- Lack of any reference is an indication of two things: original research and lack of notability sufficient to support inclusion in an encyclopedia. After no less than six years, if no one has found -- or bothered to find -- references, then the article must not be very important. I understand that there is no deadline, but no deadline does not mean forever. In a few cases, someone like you takes an interest, references are found, and the article is restored to a proper state. That make me happy. When I find a reference for one of these musty articles, I put it in. You can check, as you have promised to do all my work. That's fine. Rhadow (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• No, it's not fine. It seems disruptive because it wastes our time. I shall continue to collect good examples of your failure to understand and observe the policy and when I have about ten such, I shall ask for you to be sanctioned. Andrew D. (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Andrew Davidson here, and I am sorry if some things I said to you on this earlier led you in this direction. I do support usage of WP:DEL7 when it has been followed: that means there must be an exhaustive search for references in order to verify it. On Albemarle Settlements, I was able to pretty quickly find sources doing a very fast Google books search. I don't have the time to do much more for that article, but considering that the North Carolina Collection is the largest collection of resources documenting the history of a state of the United States, I highly suspect that this article can be verified pretty easily. I see on WP:North Carolina that Toddst1 is interested in the history of North Carolina and North-east NC. Maybe he could have an idea on how to deal with this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello TonyBallioni -- Frankly, I don't get it. People go to the trouble to tag an article without doing the due diligence. Then the tag sits for eight or ten years. When I look at one of those articles, I see original research without notability. If I don't find something quickly, I PROD it. You cannot see how many I have done, because at the end of a week, the article goes away and so does any trace of it. I don't even see them on my contributions list. On my watchlist just today are eight articles that someone agreed with the prod, or expired it and put a speedy delete on it. Those didn't waste anyone's time. Whenever I do put a PROD, I explain my reasoning. Take, for example, the Polar regions of Earth nomination I made. Andrew Davidson intends to send me to the star chamber and get me banished from the kingdom for that. I laid my whole line of thinking out at Polar regions of Earth#Duplication and overlap results in bad quality. All he sees is that I am disruptive. I ask you, what value does it serve to have these two articles: Rotary converter plant (no references since 2011) and Rotary converter? I have to say, all that happy talk about good faith doesn't ring true. What's bold is the treatment of newbies and women. If all you expect from newbies is edits from hyphen to en-dash, you're not going to get much good writing or a decrease in the backlog of substandard articles. When the time comes, I know the end will be quick and I shant be given a chance to speak from the scaffold. Rhadow (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia, like any complex system intellectual or bureaucratic, is a system where you have competing ideals that exist in tension with one another. We both want to include everything that should be included, while making sure everything can be verified. Notability is a guideline, it does not control everything and I will often call people out for thinking that it does, but sometimes there will be something that is so notable that if we were to delete it, we would lose credibility as an encyclopedia.

I very rarely agree with Andrew Davidson, but the point he is making here is that for at least four articles you have PRODed, it really would make us lose so much credibility if we were to delete them. I'm a stickler for WP:V (anyone who has been through a GA review with me will tell you that), but for cases like those, where we can reasonably assume that a member of the English Wikipedia could very easily verify them, PROD or AfD would be inappropriate: WP:DEL7 does not apply, and there are valid alternatives such as merging.

Yes: you have had a very rough experience starting Wikipedia. You had two successive SPIs and now you feel people are jumping on you because you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. That's not great, and I'm sorry you've had those experiences. My advice to you would be this: find an area of the encyclopedia you think you can expand. I'm particularly fond of early modern papal conclaves because they are largely based on self-published sourcing or borderline polemics, and are fairly easy to turn around into good articles. I'm sure there is a topic you are familiar with from the early years of Wikipedia that you could improve as well. You've seen how so many of these articles need improvement. You're pretty clearly an intelligent editor, I'm pretty sure you could find one to improve: this will help you understand the English Wikipedia's policies (which are based on practice), and make you much better at maintenance tasks longterm. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you TonyBallioni, for responding. Thank you for bringing up the SPI investigations. The text is gone, but the reputation remains. I found an area I enjoy, one where I am apparently allowed to use primary sources without criticism: federal court cases. None are reviewed, but I have learned the trick -- just attach an index tag; it accomplishes the same effect. I will take your advice. Go work on the old articles where my work will not show up on a review queue. Ciao for now. Rhadow (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Rhadow, thanks for creating Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Would like to see more than one reference for this case. Otherwise a great article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

If a subject is anything but pop culture, and particularly if it dates to the dark ages before the 1990s, it's better to look for sources in books and academic papers rather than on the web, as you seem to have been doing with historical Japanese people. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello 86.17.222.157 -- Thanks. Google scholar lets you see the relevant few pages from every book. My frustration is instead, the ten years that readers of French and Japanese have had to look at easily accessible stuff on the web, but just haven't. I am so glad you joined on these few articles I PRODded, but did not have the skills to fix. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

But some of those articles were very easily sourceable to sources found in English by Google Books and Scholar searches. And if sources could be expected to be in other languages then you should engage other editors who know those languages, for example via Wikiprojects, rather than claim that because you personally don't understand the potential sources an article should be deleted. I see that you were warned above a couple of weeks ago that your deletion nominations were disruptive. They still are. The whole point of Wikipedia is that editors who see a problem with an article do the work themselves to check it out, rather than demand that an article be deleted if someone else doesn't fix the problem. I seem to remember that you have said in another discussion that in real life you are a project manager. There are no project managers, particularly no self-appointed ones, on Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chrissymad -- I suggest three SPAs are sockpuppets. I'm not sure I have the energy for the drama boards. It strains my credulity that a first-time editor would quote WP policy chapter and verse. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rhadow Sorry, I'm not following. What's the context here? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chrissymad -- the article you tagged for COI -- RIMS Risk Maturity Model Rhadow (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just a note to let you know that an AfD you participated in is up for review here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have deprodded Stimbox because it was prodded and deprodded in April 2007. If you still wish to pursue deletion please feel free to open an AFD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have deprodded J. Desai and D. Gamit because they were prodded and deprodded in 2010. I have no prejudice against nominating these articles at AFD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

David Boies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Winner-take-all

Lawrence Lessig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Winner-take-all

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's no point in making edits like this since it's a bot-built page, and Legobot will merely alter it back to how it was (see also User talk:Scope creep#Editing RfC listings).

The present problem is that the redirect that formerly fixed that redlink was deleted earlier today by RHaworth (talk · contribs) at the request of JMHamo (talk · contribs), see User talk:RHaworth#Talk:Asahi-ekimae-d?ri Station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of microfinance sponsors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Adds very little (if anything) to the main article on peer-to-peer lending.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rhadow, I declined to delete this prod because the subject seems to meet WP:NCRIC. Please nominate at AfD if you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks! A Train^talk 19:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You had nominated the ten year old AfD discussion for deletion (at WP:MFD), while you would have intended to nominate List of defunct Pennsylvania sports teams for deletion (at WP:AfD). I have closed the MfD, but you will have to nominate the article via the AfD process if you wish to. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at various AfDs.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your persistence in asserting that NSPORTS subjects fail WP:BLP1E is disruptive and antagonistic. NSPORTS is expressly outside the scope of BLP1E. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Jack The topic of non-notable Sri Lankan cricket players has been discussed at the talk pages of the players, at the Cricket page, on new pages that would be a compromise between all, and at AfD multiple times. While the cricket fans have refused either to accept a compromise or offer modifications, they have spilled gallons of ink. Every article about one-game players that went to AfD meanwhile has been deleted. I hardly think I am being disruptive (as WP defines it). It seems there are folks here who just wanna argue until everyone else goes home. Rhadow (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Yep. Calling people disruptive, issuing bogus "warnings", and screaming at people until they leave, seems to be the primary tactic. Reyk _YO! 05:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

None of your business at all. I suggest you refrain from both WP:Wikistalking and bullshitting. Rhadow has misrepresented guidelines and sources several times and needs to learn that he cannot do that. For example: claiming BLP1E re sportspeople; claiming that CricketArchive is a primary source. If he refrains from these unacceptable tactics in future then all well and good – the warning will have served its purpose. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It is Jack who is engaging in usjustified behoavior. There is nothing wrong with nominating articles with one, mass directory, source for deletion. In fact, there is something wrong with not nominating such sub-par articles for deletion. This is not cricket-pedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hang on a second, we're working at cross-purposes here. If you lot are saying that all along the problem has been WP:ONESOURCE, you could have just told me, Jack, the project, or anyone, and we would have gladly added a second source to every single one. With that problem out of the way, who knows, there might have been nothing else to complain about.

Otherwise, if your problem all along has been that WP:CRIN is unacceptable, you could have brought this up in a suitable place before doing all of this. It seems we have been talking at cross-purposes all along and that is what upsets me about this whole business.

Of course, if the problem is neither, we can be certain that the only problem is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.... Bobo. 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello power~enwiki -- Nice template. Soft words. Deliberately vague: regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Do you say things like, "the sky, which may occasionally be observed to be of a blueish tint"? You could have said, "I posted your name on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in hopes of publicly shaming you and BlackJack (talk · contribs) for having views that differ from my reasonable common-sense solution." That's a logical fallacy called the argument to moderation. Rhadow (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I posted {{subst:AN-notice}} here verbatim, as required by policy. I don't intend to comment on any of your other remarks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Power~enwiki: The {{subst:AN-notice}} template provides some parameters which can be used to amend the message. In particular, there is |reason=, which if present, replaces the phrase "an issue with which you may have been involved" with whatever is in that parameter. The |thread= parameter may also be used for the name of the section in WP:AN; it provides a direct link to the discussion concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do not let the single minded defenders of the unreasonably low inclusion criteria for cricket players bully you into not standing up against their reighn of terror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geoffrey Berman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Berman until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm going to suggest you quickly withdraw your AfD on Water volleyball. I can't support it despite the interesting copyvio to a website, purporting to be a journal, but which isn't. The topic's clearly notable, with a lot of coverage. Removing the spurious references is something I was planning to do later - but hadn't noticed the copyvio to LLC's own work. I think clearing that out is the way to go, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

At your suggestion, I took a look at School integration in the United States. It appears that this article treats integration as more or less an accomplished fact. We know that school segregation is increasing,[1] and that the problem is not restricted to the south (NY appears to be the leader in segregation). Interesting. Thanks for your comments. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jacona -- I'll bet that more study will prove your contention. NY appears to be the leader in segregation, is wrong. There are a bunch of school district carve-outs going on right now that are worse. But that's another article. Rhadow (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of creating a separate category for segregation academies for each state. When adding the new category to articles, could you also remove the supercategory Category:Segregation_academies? See WP:SUBCAT Billhpike (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice of these articles on my talk page. I went to WP:PRD to view the discussion, but could not find the articles' discussion listed anywhere. Could you provide a link please? Tompw (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tompw -- I think with PROD, you have three choices: (1) edit the page, (2) article talk page, or (3) wait a week and the article gets deleted. There is a lot of work in these pages; it would be a shame to see them go. Rhadow (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tompw: A WP:PROD doesn't get discussed, not even on the article's talk page. If you disagree with the PROD, you should follow the instructions at WP:DEPROD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have de-prodded all of these. Canadian provincial elections are notable and relevant reliable sources certainly exist. Nominating twelve of these articles in eight minutes, or spending less than 40 seconds of searching for sources per page is clearly not enough, especially since many of the elections would have overlapping sources. The articles ideally should have sources, but per WP:NEXIST (which I also discussed in my reply at Talk:Nen-ryū), deletion should not be done solely because there are no sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Rhadow! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:50, Friday, November 24, 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the most successful crowdsourcing project ever. With five million articles and three million edits a month in English, its thirty-two million registered editors have, without regimentation, created an encyclopedia sixty times the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's successful yes, but is it sustainable?

In its first decade, all the obvious articles were written: biographies of heads of state, descriptions of locomotives, and definitions of finance terms. Most are excellent articles. Studies have shown the accuracy of those articles on a par with professionally written articles in other sources. In the main, those articles are dead on. A few are junk, misleading and sometimes counterfactual.

In its second decade, the scope of the encyclopedia expanded to politicians of lesser notability -- election is the criterion -- and every species of flora and fauna. Arguments about minor topics are more frequent. Is the mayor of a town of population less than 100,000 worthy of an article? How about a startup company or operator of five frozen custard stands? The challenge of the first decade was the creation of articles. In the second, the challenge is maintenance. The accuracy of the encyclopedia is the result of many eyes, each checking every assertion. New articles especially are getting intense scrutiny. The result is admirable. If there are no facts available from secondary and tertiary sources, there is no new article. The same cannot be said for the articles written in the first decade. Fully ten percent of the articles in the encyclopedia are supported by a single source or no sources at all. It's no fun, combing through the archives, trying to reconstruct the research that went into the creation of those articles. Sometimes it's impossible. The reference is a printed work to which access is difficult. The reference is an archived Internet piece which is now gone or paywalled. Faced with these challenges, an editor would rather write a new article than review an old one. One common result is two or more articles that replicate the same content. It's a rule in computer programming that when two lists purport to contain the same data, one is automatically wrong. We face the same at Wikipedia.

Wikipedia editors as a group, at least the ones who speak out, have a bias towards inclusion. Two articles are better than one, longer is better than shorter. It is a collective pride in creation. They forget their titles, editors which implies value in the selection of content, excluding some that would make the encyclopedia shorter and more useful to the lay-reader. When it comes time to argue for less, for shorter, and for better references, the arguments are manifold and sometimes bitter.

The anonymity of editors gives them license to be less civil than they would likely be face-to-face. That's a challenge we share with every other online interaction. The division of Wikipedians into special interest groups (projects) enables a sort of tribalism that concentrates arguments in favor of the articles that interest them. Video game players argue in favor of individual articles on every release of a video game. Train buffs argue in favor of articles on single-member variants of locomotives. In the two decades of Wikipedia history have developed arguments in favor of article retention. WP:V requires only that a source is likely to exist. WP:NODEADLINE removes the time pressure to justify an article or reference. WP:GNG expands the definition of a reliable source to outlets of dubious integrity. In the rush to justify articles, editors have forgotten the global nature of the book, to produce a manageable index to the world's knowledge pointing to readable articles, each supported by definitive sources.

Today we have many articles of tiny scope, ill-supported by references, and supported by proud authors. The problem will only worsen as we approach our third decade of existence. In some ways, Wilkipedia is a victim of its own success. Google uses the lede of an article as the de facto top search result, giving it a treasured upper-right-hand corner position in search results. The competition to get your company or your favorite topic published will only increase. In the mean time, the articles that are grandfathered into a secured position by virtue of age and the ones that have passed new page patrol are safe from deletion or merger.

Wikipedia shares with science the dichotomy of new research versus confirmation. New studies promise to unlock new knowledge. Only with repetitive studies that reproduce original results can findings be confirmed and become part of accepted knowledge. The original study may be 100% correct, but if it isn't revisited, there will always be doubt. Take any of the articles created before 2010 that have scant references. Find but one or two sketchy assertions and the whole article is thrown into doubt. Point out that the article is sketchy and discover a legion of supporters who have ignored the article for a decade.

Our procedures, the library of essays and tags, and the way AfD draw only the most vocal and interested of supporters, are not helping the cause. We need a way to give thanks to editors who involve themselves in discussions of articles that are outside their wheelhouses, to encourage them to dig into the 200,000 articles with no references. Today, the encouragement is the other way. Dare challenge an article from ten years ago and your chances are about 80% that the consensus will go against you. Three weeks later, having survived AfD, the article will be in the same sorry shape is ws prior to the debate: badly written, unreferenced, or suffering from NPOV problems. What we need is a means to turn the energy used in AfD argument to article improvement. What a shame it is to see the creative abilities of a Wikipedia team spill more virtual ink over an article discussion than the length of the unimproved article. More to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs)

• Question: is the above text in response to the recent string of AfD nominations that you made without doing WP:BEFORE, and then withdrew? Just curious. Also, you need to WP:SIGN your posts.198.58.171.47 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry 198.58.171.47 -- I was unaware of the requirement to sign postings on my own user page. You have chosen not to log in before you comments. I remain proudly, Rhadow (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rhadow. I don't recall us having any previous interaction, but I may be wrong. In case you weren't aware, Kudpung and myself are coordinators of WikiProject schools. Thanks for your interest in this important subtopic of schools. I'd like to correct a misconception on your part. The use of Wikipedia for marketing and promotion has become rampant in the last 2-3 years. However, the use of school articles for spin greatly predates that. Of course there has always been the expected "be true to your school" vandalism, but for private schools especially, the encyclopedia article as a sales brochure thing has been going on for at least the 5 years I've been around and probably much longer. I've been quietly trying to eradicate it for 4 years now. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. With seg academies, I've found the best way forward is to insist on independent sourcing (again, as quietly as possible), and counter arguments based on boosterism with hard facts. Pike lifted the demographics information layout from a school in Alabama where the SPAs were trying to paint their tokenism as integration. Another editor added census data to show that tokenism.

I know nothing of your background and I don't care, but I can say that in my lifetime, virtually every US school public and private was segregated. It is important that we have coverage of the private schools that were founded to sidestep the Civil Rights acts of 1965 and forward, but we have to temper that with an eye to the bigger picture. When you've looked at as much NCES data as I have, you'll know that the notion that US schools have achieved meaningful desegregation is fallacious. In the rust belt and the west, instead of white schools and black schools, we now have white cities and black cities.

On a side note, my comment on changing the talk page header was not directed at anyone specific. I didn't check who changed it, and I don't care. If it happens again, I will care. My opinion doesn't carry any greater weight as a project coordinator of course, but one thing it does do is give me quick access to administrative remedies if an individual makes moves such as changing neutral talk headers to something charged up, as happened at the article in question. I edit in the areas I edit because they are primarily fact based. I hate political bullshit. Altho I've made edits in this article, my only goal is NPOV. I think my talk comments make that clear. Please help me keep discussion in this article focused. If you want to try to find consensus for wider groups of articles, I'd encourage you to do that, but after we settle this. I think we need wider participation and to that end, neutral notices at WPSCH and WikiProject United States may be appropriate. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I find your mini-essay in the section above this spot on. Change is either going to have to happen or destruction will. John from Idegon (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• John from Idegon -- We did cross paths early on. It was about a crook sheriff in Indiana. I remember your counsel as sage. About me: I did attend a segregated public school in first grade. I waited at the bus stop with a black kid who went to a different school. In second grade, we were in the same class. I was, by the way, the person who nominated Category:Historically segregated white schools in the United States for deletion (the second time). For my part I have touched most of the hundred schools in segregation academies. I led by example and cajoled a reference for every school in the embedded list. BTW, the most work was done by Billhpike, who is a better editor than I.

As a general matter, I notice that these schools take three approaches to self promotion in WP: (1) none whatsoever, by ignoring it, (2) talking about sports, which gets lots of secondary source press coverage, and (3) physical plant and academics, which is hard to verify. If you point me to better guidance on NPOV and standardization articles, I'll accept your mentorship.

BTW, it appears that the white and black cities argument holds true in NJ, too.

Thanks for watching. Rhadow (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that you consider creating an article on East Holmes Academy (redirect)? There are already a lot of articles referencing it on wikipedia:

• West, Mississippi - small blurb
• Glen Collins (American football) - Not allowed to attend a game because he was black
• Heritage Academy (Mississippi) - EHA initially refused to play this school in 1989 because it had a black player.

Billhpike (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Billhpike -- Online references are pretty thin, but I got it done. Rhadow (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a few references up my sleeve that I can throw in to expand the article.Billhpike (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Billhpike -- the sources I did find have some great lists. Rhadow (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Billhpike -- A new set of stories: what do you know about Holmes County Agricultural High School? I looked up Coahoma Agricultural High School and updated the NCES numbers. No white people at all. The state legislature is reorganizing it next year. Sounds like East Side High School is not the only one left in a previous century. Rhadow (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow. We've interacted a few times and I've always been very happy with what I've seen of you. Recently you posted a message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton More that was an exception. We have three core content policies and policies and guidelines reflect the consensus of the community. I don't see any reading of these policies or any of the policies and guidelines that support your view that these sources should not count towards notability. It may be that the consensus of the community is that an article like this one is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and you are welcome to help contribute to that consensus here and by suggesting a modification to the notability guideline. But I do not think suggesting that human interest stories in local papers can be reliable sources and can help a paper satisfy guidelines and policies for what is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia is an abuse of any kind. I'm sorry if you think that I am abusing guidelines in some way. If you do think I am abusing something, I would love for you to explain it a bit more to me, because my editing often takes me in similar directions and while I don't expect everyone to like my edits, I do want to try to understand when someone does not. In all honesty, I am being sincere and want to understand. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Smmurphy -- First off, whatever I was complaining about, it wasn't you. It was about the way we operate around here generally. Here is how my thinking goes:

There exists some perfect magic measure of notability and fact, above which an article should remain in Wikipedia, and below which it should go into a person's memoirs, on a wordpress blog, or be thrown away. No single person is smart enough to determine that. No set of people can write a set of rules to cover every possible article. We only hope that after scores of people look at an AfD and a dozen write their opinions, the consensus matches the perfect magic measure. As time goes by, that standard drops.

I see so many people bring policy-based arguments to AfD without, it seems to me, asking themselves, "Does this article belong in an encyclopedia others will want to read in ten months or ten years or in 2100?" It's like a bridge game, "I bid three articles and book." Well, books are written by stupid people about stupid things too. An ISBN is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Sometimes a newspaper editor gets a call from the ad department. An ad won't run; there's extra space.

Many of these arguments are based on false equivalency. A front page article in the Washington Post or Cleveland Plain Dealer is not the same as the Weekend section of the Casper Chronicle. When a WP editor decides she want an article in, any argument will do.

As to your cowboy, he's the story-telling grandpa we all love. Along with riding horses, I bet drank his share of whiskey with customers, too. That story about Hitler's pictures is a great one. Now show them to me. Without proof, it's still a story, no matter how many times he told it to the newspaper, or his buddies in Easy Company.

The reason WP wants reliable secondary sources is that the journalist gets a chance to call bullshit on unsubstantiated stories (Trump excluded). The cub reporter in Casper is sent to talk to the engaging coffee salesman. She's not going to call out the town's favorite character ... or talk bad about the new pizza joint in town. As to the photographs, there is a single source, written sixty-four years after the event. There is a reason Comey made contemporaneous memos. They are more reliable.

If you are convinced that More's story is that much better than my grandfather's, great. If you believe that these photo albums exist, fine. Tally up the number of references you have; read the GNG guidelines even more carefully. I'm sure you can convince others that More's is a qualifying article. Under those guidelines, there is no distinction made between the Casper Chronicle and the San Francisco Chronicle, no difference between the front page and the weekend supplement.

I can frame the question another way. Fifty years ago, people sold encyclopedias door to door. If you wanted your kid to do well in school, you'd buy a World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica on the installment plan. Would you pay good money for an encyclopedia with the story of Alton More in it?

We're all here for the same reason: we like contributing to the encyclopedia, each in our own way. Enjoy. Rhadow (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. I disagree with much of what you wrote, but I am only really concerned with whether or not you think I am abusing something, which you seem to be saying I am not. If you are especially interested in pursuing a discussion with me about it, let me know. Clearly you have well thought out views I'd be happy to prod at a bit. But its generally better to let productive editors be productive wherever they like rather than set them against each other on random disagreements. As is, I am happy you responded and am happy to go about my editing. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reggie Shuford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Shuford until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A page called "Manichaean paranoia" is a Redirect link to a biographical article about "Zbigniew Brzezinski". No mention of the subject is made in the article nor is it the name of a subject heading. An article by that name has been removed twice. It is obvious vandalism and must be removed. Hotspur23 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hotspur23 -- I don't recall working on this article. Rhadow (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are looking for articles to remove, so I brought it to your attention rather than do it myself without sanction. Hotspur23 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hotspur23 -- Happy to do so. Rhadow (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for nominating the article Diving in Guam for deletion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. This is a promotional article which looks as if it will get deleted. Vorbee (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

See User:Rhadow/sandbox. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

−

• In User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Felony disenfranchisement in Virginia I received this message: "*Hello Anthony -- Would you please be so kind as to drop a copy of Felony disenfranchisement in Virginia in my sandbox? If it's useful, I'd like to work on it, despite its provenance. Rhadow (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)". At first, I obeyed it. But after reading pages User:Rhadow and User talk:Rhadow I was doubtful, and reverted what I had done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

−

• Hello Anthony Appleyard -- What's wrong with what you found on my user and talk pages? Rhadow (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added a very long quote (actually several quotes and other verbage) in a reference in Franklin Road Academy. If you meant to, fine, it just looks unusual to me. I'm not changing it in any case, just drawing it to your attention in case it was an accident.Jacona (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jacona -- Lemme guess, it was from newspapers.com. I just didn't want to lose it. It turns out that much of that article is ... how shall we say ... a fanciful remembrance of the past. Rhadow (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you completely. Hypersegregation, as distinct from segregation, is never defined, and it’s not a helpful concept, IMHO. You have my blessing if you take it out. deisenbe (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is not fair on all of you for having to deal with my edits I would perfer that articles dont exist in the first place micheal Recanati is not notable so there are no major sources including no obituary I wish the article didn’t exist as there is no source to prove or deny any of it other then a family member the other family members where of some note but still private people Flamingoflorida (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Flamingoflorida -- If you believed that Michael Recanati was not notable then a simple PROD would have done. Instead, you made 30+ edits and likely the same number or more previously as an IP editor. The article is now well referenced. And on second thought, he probably is notable for having given $30 million to NYU. If you wish to take it to AfD, have at it. Please spare me the bad typing and cries of ignorance. You are a prolific editor on a number of articles. Rhadow (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The money was never given to NYU the gift was revoked Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Flamingoflorida -- You do like to argue, don't you? There are few more reliable sources than the Wall Street Journal. You want this assertion removed? Bring a reliable secondary source.

https://nyulangone.org/conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder-in-children As you can see in the link NYU has no asberger institute the was revoked in 08 as the benchmarks wherent metFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Flamingoflorida -- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Rhadow (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A chair was given in medicine http://www.nyu.edu/about/giving/donor-recognition/endowed-chairs.htmlFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The gifs was over 20 years and was only given for 2 because of benchmarks

From ten year the link if you click it you can’t find any mention of the instatue on the website https://www.autismspeaks.org/resource/asperger-institute the Wall Street was correct the gift was given but there was no article to discuss revoking it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would an email from Ira Statfeld or Micheal Recanati son be enough to prove it was revoked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is considered promotional material and what Is not Patricia Altschul I think this article is full of it what standards should I useFlamingoflorida (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Flamingoflorida -- Here's what I think is promotional in a biography:  WP is not the Social Register. Your mileage may vary. Rhadow (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Goodness, that was one Florida hurricane I'm delighted to see the back of. What a relief! (Have a little Christmas poem, to lighten the mood) Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Isn't Central Commercial and Manual Training School an earlier incarnation of the same school as Central High School (Newark, New Jersey)? Shouldn't they be merged? Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Alansohn -- That may turn out to be the long term solution. When names and management change, even if the building remains, the institution is different, as in this case: Moor High School and East Oktibbeha County High School. There are eighteen volumes that describe the goings-on within this building. Time will tell. Rhadow (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, this source: [2] says the school opened in 1911. You changed it to 1912, but do you have a source for this as well as the opening date of January 31, 1912? The categories still reflect a 1911 establish date. Tinton5 (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tinton5 -- I edited it, but I did not change the date the building was dedicated. I believe it has been the same for almost 106 years [3]. Have a happy New Year! Rhadow (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moor High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Due to a nomination error, there were two AfDs regarding Jack Schlossberg running concurrently. Your recommendation regarding the article, originally posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination), has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg to merge the two concurrent AfDs. There was no error on your part; this is simply to inform you of the move of your recommendation to the consolidated AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hammersoft -- It pleases me to no end that WP develops policies like WP:CRYSTAL. When it comes to AfD, the rules go out the window. A good-looking member of the lucky sperm club, Jack Schlossberg, gets a pass. I suppose it was ever thus. Rhadow (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• In my recommendation to keep, it had nothing to do with what he might become. It had everything to do with him being the focus of considerable media attention. That's where WP:GNG comes in, and it coming in does not undermine WP:CRYSTAL in any respect. I'm sorry we disagree, but it's ok we disagree. All the best, and happy new year! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hammersoft-- Disagreement is fine. From it results improvement. My father's advice: Never argue over matters of fact; someone always ends up unhappy. Happy New Year! Rhadow (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hoxie - The First Stand you and User:billhpike, among others might enjoy this. Jacona (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jacona and Billhpike -- While we're on the subject, you might want to look at this: Talk:Segregation_academy#Corrections_and_consistency Rhadow (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

yes, read it first thing this morning. Some useful input. I believe that all the times I've added the words "segregation academy" I've included good sources. I may have reinserted some mentions (when reverting edits which removed the text without proper explanation) without reviewing the sources, as an unexplained or furtively explained edit appears to be whitewashing.Jacona (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has program to give editors access to paywalled databases. See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. You may wish to apply. I've used WP:Newspapers.com to find sources for a lot of articles on segregation academies. Billhpike (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow, you might wish to weigh in at Talk:Navigation room#Merger proposal. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Stewart, should we right an essay clarifying our view on the notability of local politicians? It might be worth doing so that it can get more feedback from the community than just trying to set precedent on WP:Afd would be? To be clear, I'm not trying to form a WP:CABAL here. Or anything to like the semi-active Article Rescue Squadron but in reverse for that matter. I do think it might be worth writing an essay with individuals who feel a certain way at times about deleting certain types of articles as a way to help better the encyclopedia. I say this knowing that I probably we see it used against me for articles I contribute to, but I prefer we have the essay and RfC on it to not rehash the same arguments. Thanks for your contributions! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 15:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello MattLongCT -- In my view, an encyclopedia editor has a two-fold responsibility: (1) to write cogent, well-documented articles, and (2) to curate what we've got. That means ignoring trivial details, or simply point to them without clogging the encyclopedia. A mayor of city less than 100,000 or 50,000 (pick your arbitrary number) is not notable simply for the mayorship, no matter how many articles appear in the press. In my state we have by law mayors who are councilmen elected by peers to the mayor post. That's definitely not notable. Yes, I agree that mayors of small cities and failed candidates for political post are not notable. The WP:GNG is simply too broad as Wikipedia finishes its second decade. Yes, let's take a stab it it. Rhadow (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Westfield School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just read the remark on your user page, we should rename the project Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Unfortunately, often true. Articles of supreme legal, academic, historical importance are shelved but athletics and other forms of entertainment are unassailable. At one point I thought the encyclopedia would be greatly improved by weeding out the unimportant. I've come to the conclusion that the nature of the project will never allow that to happen. I guess there is another alternative; improving the retention of important subjects. WP:NATHLETE more or less confers a lock on notability to an athlete who participated in one professional game, WP:NSCHOOL (which we both have used) confers notability to a school whose existence can be proven, but the bar is so much higher for subjects that aren't widely reported in mainstream media. Thanks for all that you do! Jacona (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the DyK for East Holmes Academy will run on MLK day. See Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 Billhpike (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Rhadow, thanks for creating Ellwood Christian Academy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A stub tag is added.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help in making the article better! Can you give me any feedbacks on the article? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kiteinthewind -- How about a famous alumni section? Read the rules, first, though. They need to be notable WP:N and have a reference that says they went to Carver. Rhadow (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow. I was part of some deletion discussions where your noms were discussed and I saw some allegations made so I had a look at your edit history. As you probably noticed I particpated in some of the discussions where you were active. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate all the article work you do! Lots of great contributions. I can't honestly say I understand some of your rationales for deleting major parks and various other subjects, but I hope there are no hard feelings. Some of the deletion discussion I've seen are a bit heated, so I wanted to come by and say hi. I apologize if any of my edits made you feel targeted. That was definitely not my intention. Take care and have a great 2018 and beyond. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hello FloridaArmy -- WP is not twenty years old. I am hoping it lasts to thirty. When it does, it needs to be an encyclopedia with lots of important articles and very few pointless ones. An article on each trolley stop in the world, Sri-Lankan cricketers who walked on to a pitch for one match, or the storyline of every television episode ever made, threaten the value of the project. Tiffany glass or not, I fail to see why, in fifty years, anyone would want to know about that church.

As to the tone in the drama board discussions, there are some here whose greatest fun is the argument, not building an encyclopedia. That's fine. Have a happy new year. Rhadow (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your collegial response. I agree with you on the lax standards for sports figures. Suiting up even once as a professional or Olympian doesn't seem to me to be enough. But large parks and historic buildings are another matter. I'm genuinely not clear on why you think Wikipedia would be improved by omitting those subjects? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hello FloridaArmy -- Why is a building more important than a single-appearance cricketer? I cannot answer that specifically. You might ask me the same about a closed up school in a Mississippi cotton town. Imagine the reader. A student might be asked to write about turn-of-the century architecture. She needs five articles about the first and finest examples of a style. Five hundred articles about mediocre examples are worthless. A researcher will want a few articles that point to the best primary sources, either for money or academic glory. A sports fan cannot read the bios of every player in a year. The best stories need articles that tell the story of the sport. I am doing enough articles on rebel-yell academies that one cannot say after the people who remember them are dead, "That was a rare story. We don't need to worry that it will happen again." My eyes were opened when I discovered how many of these schools still exist and despite flowery language on their websites, have no black students at all, even in 2016. You tell me, what value will we derive from articles about every band that ever cut a record? Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

People who once suited up professionally or cut an album but didn't generate interest or coverage and aren't notable and I'm okay with not including them. Hiatoric buildings and large parks have a lasting role. Geneology, people interested in architectural history, preservationists, historians, often look to what was somewhere and what is there now. In the case of a large park the plants, animals, recreatiobal use, design, maintenance and upkeep issues. Schools and achool administration is a similar case. Always issues of interest. These are subjects of lasting relevance. The core tenet: does this make the Encyclopedia better or worse? is a useful guideline to follow. Thanks for the chat. Godspeed. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interesting discussion. In many ways, Wikipedia is a revival of the Utopian movement of the 19th century and has actually been much more successful than any of them were. But this discussion points out very clearly why they didn't work, and why, without serious redirection, Wikipedia will eventually fail too. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello John from Idegon -- It is no small task to edit Best Short Stories of 2018. The work is adjudicating what needs to go, not what is included. The tough choice of a librarian is deciding what books to books to dispose, what subscriptions to discontinue. In an egalitarian editor community, the end result will be All the Short Stories of 2018. The quality will revert to the mean. A reader with a five minutes or an hour or even a day will draw no value, not if every instance is included, not best examples. Think of how much work went into the development of the syllabus of your K-12 reading list. The contrary example is the reading list from law school, so long that the student needs to do the culling herself.

One of the most dangerous interpretations of Wikipedia is WP:GNG, which started as a recommendation for a necessary condition. Now is is a argument for sufficiency. If bit-player on TV gets two articles in the press, the argument is for notability based on the choice of the magazine editor, not the good sense of the Wikipedia editor. Rhadow (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

On 15 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article East Holmes Academy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in 1989, East Holmes Academy offered to forfeit a football game because the opponent had a black player? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/East Holmes Academy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, East Holmes Academy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rhadow! Hey, I just wanted to let you know you don't need to put obviously nn lower schools through deletion processes. Just BOLDly redirect. For US public schools, the target should be the district. If there isn't an article for the district, the community it's in should be the target. For private schools and schools outside the US, generally the best target is the community, altho for some Catholic schools, the diocese article makes more sense. After you've redirected, please add the template {{r from school}} to the article and a bot will automatically fix categories and talk page headers. If your redirect is reverted, then take it to AfD. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Doral Academy Preparatory School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Academica

International Studies Charter High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Academica

Somerset Academy High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Academica

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Well done for creating this page! As a next step, perhaps you could add a link the helps to clarify what you mean by "at-risk students"?

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that you understand. You submitted your sandbox to AFC for review, and then, when I asked what you were trying to do, you told me to stay out of your sandbox. However, submitting it to AFC for review is precisely a request that a reviewer look at it. When I did that, I discovered that you had also submitted almost the same article from draft space, and had also created the article in draft space. If you made a mistake in submitting two copies of the Joyner article to review at the same time as you moved one into mainspace, then you made a mistake, but, if so, you are really being unfairly snappy to me in telling me to stay out of the sandbox when you had submitted it. If you simply made two mistakes, first, in submitting it, and, second, in rebuking me, I will accept your apology, but not if you are on a high horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Robert McClenon -- I'm not sure that you understand. I did not write anything about Joyner until this morning. Someone else, Secretariatmanowar, wrote one, which was refused and reverted to draft status. Believing that the topic is notable, I wrote a quick version (not as good as the draft) directly in the mainspace where it was reviewed almost immediately. I never submitted my sandbox for anything. I swiped a paragraph and some references from the draft. I also used the standard infobox. The facts are the same. Is it any wonder that the articles look alike? I don't submit my sandbox for review. You can check the history. See if I submitted anything for AfC. I typed directly into the mainspace. If it passes review, great. I have five unreviewed articles in the queue. That's my method. I will apologize to anyone when I am wrong -- which is not infrequently. In this case, I believe that you are the one who started out with the sharp attitude. No apology expected. If you don't like the article, take it to AfD. Rhadow (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gordon Food Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cash and carry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm amazed at the low bar used for rail station articles. Stanford station is little more than a sign marking where trains stop a few days per year. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello talk -- I PRODded Stanford station. The argument at reversion was that its notability was conferred by its neighboring stations. Meanwhile, I had a K-8 school disappear by a cool technique -- a redirect without comment to the school district. Rhadow (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have deprodded Avianca Ecuador destinations and First Choice Airways destinations as they were both part of a massive AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations. I have no prejudice against nominating both of these as their own stand-alone AfDs. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Kuyabribri -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations is concluded. The current argument is at [4]]. I'll wait till that one is done. Rhadow (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're right on this one! Please note that I've suggested to redirect the article. Separately, you may want to search the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) for archived versions of the urls you are marking as having dead links. I already did so at PLUNA destinations [5]. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Aero California destinations
• Baboo destinations
• Blue Panorama destinations
• bmibaby destinations
• Boliviana de Aviación destinations
• CanJet destinations
• Caribair destinations
• Centralwings destinations
• City Airline destinations
• Clickair destinations
• First Choice Airways destinations
• Flyglobespan destinations
• Holidays Czech Airlines destinations
• Jet4you destinations
• MexicanaClick destinations
• MexicanaLink destinations
• Monarch Airlines destinations
• Orbest Orizonia Airlines destinations
• SATENA destinations
• Skyservice destinations
• Ted destinations
• Travel Service Airlines destinations
• TRIP Linhas Aéreas destinations
• Wizz Air Ukraine destinations

• Aerosvit destinations
• AnadoluJet destinations
• Estonian Air destinations
• Iran Aseman Airlines destinations
• IZair destinations
• Pegasus Airlines destinations
• Syphax Airlines destinations

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This AfD was accidental and has been deleted. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SMP0328. (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination) as Iadarola's career has grown, I have added additional sources covering his primary hosting of "True North" and "The Damage Report" series with additional non TYT sources. This is in addition to his daily hosting duties on the TYT main show. I have reactivated the article to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 any 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Galobtter, why did you send me this alert? What offense would make me liable to discretionary sanctions? Rhadow (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As it says in the message, this is just a standard message to let you know - nothing to worry about. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Galobtter, oh, like the billboards that give the standard message about voter fraud. Okay. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Galobtter, I'd be very interested in knowing what article this (and the one you left Jacona) this is in regard to. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello John from Idegon, the articles in question are Lawrence County Academy, Brookhaven Academy, Brookhaven, Mississippi, and Cindy Hyde-Smith. Rhadow (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Cindy Hyde-Smith, which has a good chance of getting some page restrictions slapped on it as it is heading towards the special election. (and apologies that this alert irritated Rhadow and Jacona - I regularly give the standard alert to let people know of the discretionary sanctions around the area, whether I disagree with the person or not or whether I think they will be sanctioned or not) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Galobtter, I apologize for being touchy about the template, but I believe the discretionary sanctions templates are often used as a tool of intimidation rather than a tool of information. They probably would be more useful if they were less wordy, but that's rarely the way things are done. Why use 5 words when 5,000 would suffice?Jacona (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jacona, it is altogether too frequent that gadflies with no interest in improving an article patrol WP, cite obscure rules, and use tags to further some other agenda including politics or the ego-satisfying breast-beating of a petit fonctionnaire. The warning we got was followed up by an allegation of BLP -- subsequently found to be baseless -- and restrictions were placed on the article. Look at the number of column inches devoted to criticism of the Cindy Hyde-Smith article. "Nothing to worry about," was disingenuous. The wheels were in motion already: run to an authority and seek a sanction. I betcha more of Wikipedia's disk space is consumed in arguments than content. The function of WP has changed from a place to create an encyclopedia to a forum for arguing over it. C'est la vie. Rhadow (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in many ways the encyclopedia is a victim of its own success, so that's a mixed bag to some degree. I think the BLP thing was largely political POV pushing. They more or less accused me of electioneering....they shut that up when I invited them to search my edits for any evidence of that. I'm sure they searched, but they'll have to go to great effort to manufacture a half-decent wikilawyer's case for that. The guilty dog barks loudest, and there was certainly at least one guilty dog in the discussion. Thanks for your work to make the encyclopedia better!Jacona (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And now this...Jacona (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been edited Wikipedia articles for a long time, and I've never seen the complete removal of an External links section when there is a perfectly normal link that usually goes there. So before I put the link back, and start a section at Talk:Brookhaven Academy, I'd like to point out the following, at WP:ELOFFICIAL:

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

• The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
• The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided ..."

The link to the Brookhaven Academy website clearly is an official link; that the same link occurs in the References section is (per the cited guideline) irrelevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, John Broughton, and there is already an official link in the infobox. It seem duplicative to me to have the same link twice, particularly when there are no other external links. I was following the guidance in WP:ELOFFICIAL, "Normally, only one official link is included." Rhadow (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The guidelines endorse the official website link in external links, even tho it's also in the infobox. There are very few other external links appropriate for school articles, so it gives a base for an external link section, which is a good landing place for templates like portal and commons links. The same practice is followed on corporation articles. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rhadow - you're reading "Normally, only one official link is included" to mean something like "Normally, an official link is included only once in either the infobox or the External links section". That's incorrect - look at the next sentence: "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate under a very few limited circumstances." In other words, the sentence you quoted has to do with whether it's okay to have two or more official links, not whether it's okay to have the same official link in two places.

Here's a more relevant sentence from the guideline: "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section." That says that it's perfectly fine to have the same official link appear in both places; in fact, it strongly implies that the infobox is optional.

If you've been deleting official links in the External links sections of other articles, I strongly suggest that you stop. You're welcome to start a discussion at Talk:External links as to whether you should continue, but please note that the matter has already been discussed here, making the same point that John from Idegon|John from Idegon and I have made. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, John Broughton, if it pleases you, go ahead and add External links to Brookhaven Academy. In my judgement, it adds nothing to the article; the link is already in the infobox. Yes, you already supported your argument with an obscure citation from eight years ago. Likewise, the See also section is pointless; the sole list item is already covered in the Categories at the bottom of the page. I think Billhpike would agree.

I thought you would be more offended by the removal of the table of attendance by grade. It was a lot of work, I know. In my judgement, a table that demonstrates a slow but linear decline in students by year doesn't convey any useful knowledge about the school. The same table would be highly illustrative in a case like Basis Scottsdale where academic standards are maintained by culling the weak performers. I think John from Idegon would agree.

It is no wonder that Wikipedia has lost so many editors with their enthusiasm. A single good-faith edit is likely to generate pages of commentary from editors who have no interest in the article itself (you are excluded), but seek only to further some other agenda including politics or the ego-satisfying breast-beating of a petit fonctionnaire, who quotes the rules without regard to the goal of an encyclopedia. Curation is as important as inclusion. Rhadow (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, it's unfortunate that experienced editors, whether because of a strong point of view or to show how clever they are, or because of a personality quirk, are so quick to beat up on new editors, even those who edit in good faith. (Unfortunately, that can be a relatively small percentage, unless one includes single purpose editors).

As for my being offended by the removal of a table of attendance by grade, that seems clearly to be original research, which I dislike a great deal, regardless of how illustrative something is. (If it's that important, can't one find a secondary source that covers the matter?) In fact, I think a strong case could be made that the remaining table in the article is similarly a WP:NOR violation.

I come down on the opposite side with regard to the External links section, and also this particular See also section, because I think removing these does a disservice to the reader. Perhaps it's because I've done so much editing in years past where there were far fewer infoboxes, but my expectations are that if I want to see the official website, I go immediately to the External links section. And I'm not particularly bothered by duplication, conceptually, as long as it's not glaring, when what duplicated is useful to the reader. (The link in the See also section is to an article, not a category, for example.) How much duplication is okay is a matter of taste, of course, but when the rules are (arguably) ambiguous, why conclude that you're right and the other editor is wrong? (To the extent that "curation" involves disagreeing strongly with other editors about aesthetics, then I'm afraid I'm not that fond of curation.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello John Broughton, I would like to debate the question of curation versus original research. I appreciate your reasoning. When I talk about curation, I'm not talking about aesthetics.

I suggest that the value of an encyclopedia lies in its well-constructed delivery of necessary and sufficient information to the reader without requiring that the reader go to each of the citations. Sufficient means that some information is left out.

The hundred-thousand-character limitation on articles provides the first backstop against drivel. An editor must choose what to include -- and exclude. It goes without saying that when a quotation is included in an article, it includes only a line, not the entire speech. No one cares about the prefatory remarks. As long as NPOV is not violated, an editor is doing her job by selecting what to include from each citation. The choice of what to include and exclude is curation, the most important job of an editor.

In the case of Brookhaven Academy, you suggest that including the race table without a grade table is original research. I argue instead that it is curation. There is no valuable information in a grade table that shows a small and linear decrease in class sizes by grade (see argument above). Kant would ask whether a grade table would be appropriate in all school articles. I say no. If an assertion about a subject is not distinctive or illustrative, it does not add to the article. The race table illustrates an important observation about this school today (or at least in 2016).

One element that is often missing in WP articles is comparison. We need to look to citations to help us identify near misses. The reader benefits from clearly described distinctions between similar topics. I suggest as examples, Gentrification, Community displacement, and Development-induced displacement. An example of a pair of articles that need a distinction added is Citizens' Councils and Council of Conservative Citizens.

You may choose to describe me "whether because of a strong point of view or to show how clever they are, or because of a personality quirk." I am willing to listen and engage. Please join me in this discussion. Rhadow (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One of the frustrating things about Wikipedia is that it does, by design, not allow editors to point out, in Wikipedia articles, what seems obvious to them, unless they can find a reliable source that has already said the same thing. WP:V is fairly clear that taking things directly from primary sources (such as data from a report) is generally not acceptable. That's because what appears in secondary sources has not only had the (by definition) a second set of eyes (and, almost always, at least a third set of eyes) on what is published, but, more importantly, has filtered the available information in order to publish only what is considered important.

What makes all this frustrating is perhaps best illustrated by a well-known essay (a guideline, at one point, I seem to remember, but I could be wrong), WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is intended to be a mirror of the best of the published/screened/condensed world of reliable sources, not a mirror of the true world.

The consolation for this frustration is that this approach makes Wikipedia possible. Without it, arguments about (for example) whether the quality of instruction at a school is improving or decreasing could go on forever, with editors constantly bringing up new primary sources, starting new lines of argument, etc. That's the importance of WP:NOR - it says that if the (published, reliable source) world hasn't noticed something, then, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, it doesn't exist. Deliberately omitting facts, arguably, makes for a poorer encyclopedia. But what is does do is make Wikipedia possible. It makes the encyclopedia possible because (a) it limits what can be discussed, and (b) it allows relatively uninformed, relatively uninvolved editors, to be judges: "Is there a secondary source discussing academic quality at this school? Is what is in the Wikipedia article consistent with that secondary source? Is too much weight given to a small part of what appears in that secondary source?"

So, to return to curation - yes, it's critical, when looking at a secondary source, to decide what to include and what to exclude. [My rules of thumb are (1) including more than six to eight sentences is undesirable - if there aren't other sources available that have more/different information, then that raises the question as to whether what is going into the Wikipedia article is too detailed for an encylopedia, and (2) unless the secondary source is fairly short - say, a half-dozen or less paragraphs, including more than ten percent of its content is undesirable.] But I strongly disagree that curation - deciding what to include or exclude - from a primary source is appropriate, which returns us to WP:V and WP:NOR. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello John Broughton, we are in violent agreement. I understand your observations about primary sources and the temptation to cherry pick. Rhadow (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow, and thanks for stopping by my latest article. I'm writing as part of a cohort of Wikipedia Fellows dedicated to improving the coverage of women scientists, engineers, and explorers. But you knew that already from my change comment. I think I've addressed your WP:GNG tag on the top of the Darlene Lim post; I added at least 10 new references after your feedback, from places like Chicago Tribune, WIRED, Popular Science, and more. If this is sufficient, I'll follow your lead on the tag. Thanks! Tarselli (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Presbyterian Christian School. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not a question of one date format rather than another, it is a matter of consistency throughout any given article. Inconsistency in such matters (i.e. different date formats used within the same article) looks sloppy and amateurish. -- Alarics (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't remove whole article details. Check the details about that place.

Hello Makwana1993, I refer you to Talk:Sanjan railway station, where my reasoning is explained. Rhadow (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Immediately after your edit to Robert E. Lee Academy, another user made one of the most problematic edits. 1.) Claimed a conflict of interest in the edit caption 2.) Advertised that the information added was copyvio, 3.) The information added was 100% promotional, 4.) Censored information they didn't like. And really, name it Robert E. Lee and act like it's not a seg academy... Makes you wonder. Hope you're having a great day! Jacona (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The source does say it: “Everybody knows it, but they don’t want to admit it,” says Turnipseed, a former state senator who refers to himself as a reformed racist; he has spent the last 40 years trying to undo many of the divisive actions of the first half of his life. “I was taught to love your heritage; that’s what you do in South Carolina. But our heritage is racist. It’s just handed down.”Jacona (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay Jacona, put it back in. I only point out that Turnipseed was not a founder of the school. He was an "outside agitator." Rhadow (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right or wrong, it would probably be too much work to maintain. Thanks. I appreciate your work on Wikipedia, we have a lot of common interests.Jacona (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right now I am on a tear, trying to rid us of the presumption that every railroad station is notable -- the same argument as about schools. Rhadow (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Like the consensus or not, railway stations are de facto notable. Please can you stop tagging them for notability. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sitush, when you say de facto notable, do you mean important to the railroad or the community? I don't dispute either. The notability tags are based on policy WP:GNG and guidance in Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). Railway station articles like Nagaur railway station and Samdari Junction railway station do not have references to support notability. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations. Rhadow (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would much rather that they were not de facto notable, and the same with schools and villages, but my understanding is that they are. If I am wrong then fair enough and I apologise but if the situation is that there is an ongoing discussion about changing consensus then you should wait until that concludes before tagging. The whole point of these inherent notability situations is that the community has decided that there must be sources even though we do not show them. I think it is wrong-headed but it isn't a debate I'm ever likely to win because there are obsessives on the "other side" and I simply don't have the patience or energy to stick through their filibustering and grinding-down processes.

I'm not getting involved in the RfC because it is a subject area, like that of schools, which brings out the worst sorts of wikilawyers. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay Sitush, I appreciate your position. No apology required, but I appreciate it. Whether or not the notability tag goes on the article, several hundred talk pages now have a discussion of notability on them. You are right about the filibustering and grinding-down processes. Rhadow (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sitush, I researched it and now I know that de facto notability is defined at WP:DEFACTO. It appears that the existence of a policy or guidance is irrelevant. If the consensus view is that railway stations deserve articles, with or without supporting facts, they get articles. I have tough argument to make here, but I haven't quit yet. Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ha! Trust me to use a phrase that someone has turned into a project link. I hadn't read that before. I tend to learn this sort of stuff by some form of community osmosis. The (lack of) wisdom of crowds, if you like. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Cesdeva, I launched a single-article AfD to test the waters and collect the arguments. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station). It has gotten more interest than the original RfC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations), probably because it includes a concrete example. With the collected objections in hand, the mountain-moving project can begin. I noticed that the loudest participants are not particularly involved with railway station articles, but are interested in deletion discussions. At your suggestion, I did create an article from the list you gave (Rama Varma Union High School). Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rhadow, yeah....this is a WP:POINT article creation, to which I'm going to have to serve a warning (See below). --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Stop creating articles, as you did with Sonasan railway station to prove a WP:POINT. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your post at WT:CSD, it has answered a few questions for me. Do I understand correctly that you support my position that for a railway station to be notable, that notability has to be demonstrated in the article by verification from reliable sources? Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Rhadow,

I would like your advice regarding the page I have been attempting to update, please. Thus far, as you have seen, my efforts are for nothing. I have tried to meet the need for sources other than statutes, as well. This also seems to be of little value to the person deleting the updates. Would you have any advice for this?

Thank you.

Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen, I suggest you pick another topic to which to devote your effort. A WP:BEFORE search turns up precious little on your topic. As an organization with no press and only 200 members, frankly, it fails WP:GNG. Please read my observations at Michigan Volunteer Defense Force#Legal protection. Rhadow (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your edits to New Garia railway station broke the map. Perhaps you could fix that. Also, why was "display=inline,title" changed by omitting title? I am not familiar with the guidelines for coordinates but it seems common to have them displayed at the top. I have a feeling that makes the coordinates "primary" for the page, although I don't quite remember the point of that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Johnuniq, if I didn't break something over the last few days, I would be surprised. If I fat-fingered New Garia railway station, I apologize. I looked and didn't see it. I don't know any standard for placement of coordinates. No point in duplicating the data anyway. I think they are appropriately located close to the rest of the address in the infobox, but that's a personal thing. Thanks for looking, though. Rhadow (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, please do not change articles based on a personal thing. I see many articles on places and buildings that have coordinates at the top and unless a guideline explaining that a particular usage is not appropriate can be found, they should not be changed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Rhadow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #24160 was submitted on Mar 04, 2019 01:15:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhadow,

The track between Haridwar & Dehradun is a single line electrified track. The single line branches out into 4 platforms at Dehradun. I had added an image on the article to address your specific question on number of platforms.

Pls view https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mussoorie_Express_at_Dehradun.jpg.

This image as is evident has been taken a Platform 4 with the LED display showing the Dehradun station code "DDN".

Trust I have been able to address your question satisfactorily. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make edits in anticipation of future events, as you did at Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, as this breaches WP:CRYSTAL. The correct approach is to build the linked section on the destination article, wait until it becomes too large to fit in the host page, and only then then fork it back to the previously-deleted article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation SystemReply

Haven't seen you around here much lately. How's it going? Jacona (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You had tagged Jodhpur Cantt railway station for notability. Please note that Railway stations are notable landmarks. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reliance on a rule, such as "Railway stations are notable landmarks," leads to absurd results. This is what Jodhpur Cantt railway station looks like. Photo of Jodhpur Cantt railway stop. Find a third party source. --Rhadow (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rhadow, That is not a railway station. It shows the end of a railway platform. I have never seen a worst Strawman argument. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

[6] check the pics here. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Walrus Ji, I respectfully refer you to a rather long discussion on this topic [7]] --Rhadow (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rhadow, I note that the RfC was closed as no consensus. I also note that the failure to have your way to get rid of those articles has not stopped you from frivolously marking them as lacking notable, even when they pass the level of notability of railway stations on Wikipedia. For minor stations known as Railway "Halt", it may be acceptable to merge+redirect, but not for full fledged Indian railway stations. Please be careful and decide on the basis of reliable sources. Not random pics on Google Photos. Based on personal experience I have seen tons of Indian google photos wrongly geotagged. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Walrus Ji If your mission is to remove notability tags from India railway stub articles with little or no other work, please have at it. No notice to me is required. --Rhadow (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you believe that a railway station handling a million passengers annually is not notable? (referring to Vetapalem railway station) Walrus Ji (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As someone who has contributed to its talk page, you may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as you have voted for deletion of the article Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta as you have mentioned that Candidacy does not qualify under WP:NPOL but can you please check people can still be notable if if they meet the general notability guideline as stated in WP:NPOLITICIAN section. So I request you to please check the subject on this parameter WP:GNG as the subject have a significant media coverage from different reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks and regards. Info.apsharma (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello info.apsharma. Yes, I am aware that WP:GNG may apply. Have a look at a similar debate, not yet closed [Frisch]. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Rhadow (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Veritas Christian Academy, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritas Christian Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Rhadow. I noticed your talk page edit on this BLP in 2017. I agree with your observations. Is it worth the effort to initiate an xfd for the article, do you think? -- FeralOink (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @FeralOink -- I agree with my former self. It's vanity, or sure looks like it. Propose, see that I get copied, and I'll support. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply