User talk:M.O.X/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions with M.O.X. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| < Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - ... (up to 100) |
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:
|
Content
|
|
CSD A7 on Ghassan Ashqar
I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Ghassan Ashqar. The article indicates in the infobox that the subject is a member of parliament, which is supported by the reference. In my opinion that is a sufficient indication of importance to survive criteria A7. I have no objection if you would like to pursue an alternative deletion process against the article. Monty845 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- ArabDecision.org is a reliable source now is it? Notability is established through verifiable, independent, reliable sources. Perhaps you should read those guidelines because an unreliable source DOES NOT establish notability. However, because of this "claim of importance", I will not challenge your decision. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:39am • 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Remember that to survive CSD criteria A7 does not require that the article be properly referenced, or that the subject actually be notable. To quote the CSD policy, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". So I'm not saying he is notable, and I have no objection if you think he is not notable and would like to initiate an AfD. I personally did not do that because I think it is likely that a member of any national legislative body is probably notable, and it would come down to whether anyone is able to find non-English sources to support it. Monty845 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why A7 is flawed, very well, I'll pursue AfD later, when I am positive that this MP has not been subject to much coverage. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:47am • 01:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but A7 is not flawed at all, in my opinion. To be speedy deleted requires there to be no indication of importance and/or significance whatsoever. If this is not the case, then the article cannot and should not be speedy deleted. That is why there are other venues, such as WP:PROD and WP:AFD, that allow for more discussion regarding deletions. To speedily delete an article that doesn't establish notability but does imply importance and/or significance is inherently incorrect and unjust to the article's creator. Logan Talk Contributions 06:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Importance is broadly construed, how can one verify a person is "important" if the assertion is backed with an unreliable source, such as in the aforementioned article. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:51pm • 07:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- The claim has to be reasonable, not verifiable. So claiming to be a member of parliament is certainly enough, unless the article also claims that the subject is five years old or something similar. Speedy deletion should be used for something that could never meet Wikipedia's standards, not something with hope. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Importance is broadly construed, how can one verify a person is "important" if the assertion is backed with an unreliable source, such as in the aforementioned article. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:51pm • 07:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but A7 is not flawed at all, in my opinion. To be speedy deleted requires there to be no indication of importance and/or significance whatsoever. If this is not the case, then the article cannot and should not be speedy deleted. That is why there are other venues, such as WP:PROD and WP:AFD, that allow for more discussion regarding deletions. To speedily delete an article that doesn't establish notability but does imply importance and/or significance is inherently incorrect and unjust to the article's creator. Logan Talk Contributions 06:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why A7 is flawed, very well, I'll pursue AfD later, when I am positive that this MP has not been subject to much coverage. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:47am • 01:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also note that WP:CSD#A7 specifically says: "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. ... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." In any case, I am fairly sure that an AfD would fail due to WP:POLITICIAN stating the general notability requirement to be: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So lack of reliable, verifiable independent sources and an assertion of importance is enough? Pardon my French but that article is absolutely shit and there is no chance of it ever improving. Period. Notability also holds that an article must be backed up with a reliable source, it seems to me that everyone is overlooking that minor, but important, detail. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:35am • 00:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. For example, subjects that are de facto notable don't always need reliable sources to be kept at AfD. In any case, this news article seems to confirm that Mr. Ashqar was indeed a Lebanese MP. So unless you'd like to dispute the reliability of that source, I see the relevant notability guideline satisfied. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like Arabdecision.org it's not reliable, Wikipedia doesn't have an article for it, now if it was Al Jazeera, I'd think otherwise. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:33am • 01:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. For example, subjects that are de facto notable don't always need reliable sources to be kept at AfD. In any case, this news article seems to confirm that Mr. Ashqar was indeed a Lebanese MP. So unless you'd like to dispute the reliability of that source, I see the relevant notability guideline satisfied. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So lack of reliable, verifiable independent sources and an assertion of importance is enough? Pardon my French but that article is absolutely shit and there is no chance of it ever improving. Period. Notability also holds that an article must be backed up with a reliable source, it seems to me that everyone is overlooking that minor, but important, detail. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:35am • 00:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, now a newspaper has to have a Wikipedia article to be a reliable source? That's news to me. Could you point to the relevant policy or guideline dictating this requirement? (Anyway, it seems you didn't look carefully because Daily Star (Lebanon) exists. And before you say that the link wasn't on its website so it doesn't count, there's a copy here.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ports of a newspaper can hardly be considered a reliable source. Well it's not a requirement, more a stepping stone, I never said IT HAD TO have a Wikipedia article, I merely pointed out that it didn't. I won't pursue this matter any further, I was wrong and I accept that. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43am • 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Remember that to survive CSD criteria A7 does not require that the article be properly referenced, or that the subject actually be notable. To quote the CSD policy, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". So I'm not saying he is notable, and I have no objection if you think he is not notable and would like to initiate an AfD. I personally did not do that because I think it is likely that a member of any national legislative body is probably notable, and it would come down to whether anyone is able to find non-English sources to support it. Monty845 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
Message at my Talk Page
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry if the template was not proper. I was in a discussion with another user; you may wish to see it if you like. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| As for supporting me at my Abuse response nomination and training me on how to use the abuse reports, I give you this barnstar. Plus, your contributions are perfect on articles and making them DYK's and GA, not only that, FA as well. Enjoy! Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks, though I haven't had an FA yet, I probably should get working on an article or too! Do keep up the good work Damir! :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:32am • 00:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You"re welcome. Now if you"ll execuse me I have one IP to report and investigating and contacting the ISP.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
English Article on German Wikipedia
Hello ! I have found you on the adopters list and hope you can help me. I have created my wikipedia account from Germany, but would like to write in English. I have given in my prefernce the english language. Still I get notices from Wikipedia in German. How could I get these in English ? I created a page in English for "Mumbiram" which appears on "de.wikipedia" and got note: "wrong language" and got deleted without any detailed reasoning. How can I create English Articles from my account that will appear on the "en.wikipedia" ? --Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't understand that very well, so correct me if I'm wrong. But from what I can see: you wrote an English article on the German Wikipedia, if so then it is deleted because each Wikipedia is for that language only. Any registered user on the English Wikipedia can create articles, to get started read these 2 newcomers guides: your first article and referencing for beginners. They cover the fundamentals of article writing. Good luck! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:18pm • 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
FUI
This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 10:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Time For a Big Achievement
Hey there James, it is time for me to give you achievements (I do apologize if the templates did make an error while adjusting them)...
|
Cookies! | |
|
CHAK 001 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! |
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| This is the point where I had to make a decision based on the past edits and/or contributions. Your contributions and some advice on my talk page when you have notified me (which is now archived) has lead me to give you the following reward. I could say that this may be one of your biggest achievements ever! CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Euthanasia
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euthanasia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
Editor review
Hey M.O.X., since you reviewed me on editor review here, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing me again? The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if you noticed this yet, with the three messages below. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm busy at the moment, but I'll do it when I've got some spare time. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:48pm • 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 13:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm busy at the moment, but I'll do it when I've got some spare time. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:48pm • 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Operation Entebbe
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Operation Entebbe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hamsa
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hamsa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ancient M.O.X. of Doom
Hey there.
1) What's a M.O.X.?
- A hero in the Guild Wars franchise, it is a golem created by an Asuran mage. The Asura, are gnomish-elf-like creatures of dexterity and intelligence (the dwarves are a close second, though they are too theistic).
2) How many user changes do intend on having?
- None, real life permitting.
3) If it's more than the two you've already had, would you consider Ancient M.O.X. of Doom?
- Hmmm... I don't see the harm in that :P
Sven Manguard Wha? 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:22pm • 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- 2) was supposed to say "more user name" where it says user. Oops. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, no problem Sven. I wouldn't have had any name changes were it not for the real life heckling. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47am • 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Your review
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your review here. I appreciate it. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 03:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, if you need anything, I'm always willing to help! :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:40pm • 03:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks James. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Amazing Grace
Regarding Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Three versions of Amazing Grace, why didn't you promote File:Amazing Grace (USAFB brass).ogg. I count 3 support, 1 weak support, 1 neutral and no oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re-read it, there was stronger consensus to promote the strings rendition. The !votes and comments evaluated each individual rendition, 2 of the supports for the brass version were very weak and detailed its faults and there was some opposition to the promotion of the brass band rendition. I don't promote files on the basis of how many !votes there are. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:06am • 01:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I count the following support for brass:
- Nom support
- User:Guerillero Strong support
- User:Resident Mario Weak support
- User:TCO Support
- User:Major Bloodnok Conditional support
- I count the following oppositions for the brass
- None.
What am I missing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, my mistake... I'll fix that up. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:30am • 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)