User talk:Newshunter12

Newshunter12, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Newshunter12!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Bot

You can't assume a birth date based on the publication date of the article. It said she was born in January 1905 and that she had just celebrated it which does not mean it was on that day.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the situation with Jeanne Bot is not perfect as the article doesn't explicitly state her date of birth, but either we go with the implied January 18, find a reliable source showing it's the 14 or remove her. Using the implied 18th since another reliable source doesn't seem to exist seemed the best option to me, but which do you prefer? For my part, a reasonable editor could believe the article is saying she was born on the 18, but I obviously wasn't there myself 112 years ago to know for certain. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I set up a conversation on the talk page about it.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kane Tanaka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Longevity

I know it's frustrating, believe me. I was a peripheral part of the ArbCom case all that time ago, and the issues go back before my time to at least 2006. My work on this has earned me a lot of off-wiki vitriol from the 110 Club, the way they talk about me you'd think I actually go around murdering these people or desecrating their remains. It's just not worth taking personally or letting it get to you. The long game, such as it is, will work out, it just takes time; lest you be discouraged, look at WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts and WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination). Your contributions in the area are enormously helpful and valued, don't get discouraged. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) Thank you so much for your words of encouragement and for sharing the trials you have faced for many years while editing in this topic. This wiki topic is a tough realm to be in for sure, but I agree that the long game is in our favor as demonstrated by the links you provided, which I read. No worries, I will stay strong and keep editing in the topic, while letting the insults and slander against me go. I clearly have had it easy compared to you! Thank you for your compliments about my editing in the longevity topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. And thank you for getting involved. It is an interesting subject, after all, and Wikipedia's coverage of it can be the sum of all the best sources. Definitely keep at it, and I'll help out as much as I can. WP:WikiProject Longevity is looking good, and strengthening it will be a huge asset. Thanks for all your hard work, and don't ever hesitate to reach out to me for anything. (And as an aside, it is strangely amusing to see the way the longevity types portray me; insert "longevity fanboy" for "vandal" here and do the same for "troll" here and it's a huge weight off your shoulders) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring across multiple articles

Please see my note here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gabrielle Valentine des Robert

Is this a source? http://centenaires-francais.fo...e-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus Ignoto2 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ignoto2 That "source" is a forum, and forums are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. You must also provide the reliable source (a newspaper article or obituary for example) when you make a death removal; its existence somewhere else is not enough. I don't think you had bad faith in your removal, but this is not the first time you have failed to adhere to policy and I have warned you before in edit summaries, so I felt an official warning was needed this time. Please adhere to policy going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Next time i will provide a reliable sources before changing Ignoto2 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hoping you don't go

I've been watching at EEng's talk page, and I hope that your retirement will not be permanent, maybe just a refreshing break for a while over the holidays. But, very seriously, if you are seeing any indication of anything threatening to you or to your family, please email ArbCom about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi, I really don't want to start an edit war between us. Is there any compromise version of the page we could agree on? Rockstonetalk to me! 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone Hey, I really appreciate you defending me at the edit warring notice board. I'm going to continue this discussion at the approprotate article talk page so that other editors have a chance to see it. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sounds good. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Newshunter12 reported by User:178.239.161.219 (Result: ). This is a complaint about edit warring at Oldest people. If you don't believe you were edit warring, you may wish to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lepetit should not be removed

Edith Lepetit is apparently 112 and alive

http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/t18-preuves-de-vie-sur-les-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus#9270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FBA:7F90:A98F:BD74:38C:28D2 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider forums to be reliable sources. That citation is of no use to us. What list were you referring to by the way? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD

It's getting hot there, I know. I'm trying my very best to keep things from boiling over, this still is nothing like the blowups that went on in 2010 and no one who was around then wants a repeat. I hope this is the last of the contentious AfDs in this topic area (I have 2 merge ideas, but that should be much less contentious). You've been extremely helpful in this topic area, and I want you to stick around, so do your best to stay above the fray. It can be extremely taxing, but it's only one discussion; if, in fact, the article is kept and there are some sources, rewriting it a bit can be beneficial in a couple different ways. I'll do my part to keep on keeping on, there's certainly enough good existing content in this topic area to improve on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights I tried to resolve at least part of the situation with BHG, but I'll sum that effort up as a train wreck. As far as that one AfD goes, I'm done with my involvement, now. We'll both keep up the good fight elsewhere for sure, mate. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Never hurts to step back sometimes, there's always somewhere else in need of some kind of work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Since our secret admirer seems insistent on sticking around for a while, I've semiprotected your talkpage for a month. Let me know if you want me to modify that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights Thanks so much, mate, for all the good work you've done on my talkpage today. A month of semi-protection sounds great - it's been very rare that an IP address has constructively edited my talkpage, so I'm not really missing anything good. If it ever came to it in the future, I'd be fine with permanent or very long semi-protection. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'll definitely keep an eye on things. If someone wants to bother me, well, I work with disabled adults, so dealing with long profane rants is part of the deal; at least on Wikipedia I don't (as happened to me once) have to restrain someone for 4 1/2 hours in full Halloween costume! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Newshunter12 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Newshunter12. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

IP impersonating you

Hello, Newshunter12. You have new messages at Hijiri88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wasn't sure if you get pings.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An overdue barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent hard work of conducting in-depth scrutiny of so many portals, and your well-reasoned nominations for deletion of those which do not meet established guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BrownHairedGirl for giving me my first Barnstar! I saw it much earlier but didn't have time to respond then. It really made my day! I'm going to add it to my user page right now. It's really sweet of you - thanks again! :) Newshunter12 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It has been hard-earned! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal MFDs

Please take no offense, but it sometimes looks like you are just copying and pasting the same thing across recent portal deletion discussions. I don't have substantial arguments against yours, but they sound pretty similar in general and don't really add much to the discussions. You might as well create a user subpage titled something like User:Newshunter12/Standard portal deletion argument and subst it. Geolodus (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) I have to say I kind of disagree with that analysis. My perception is that cut-and-paste !votes are very common in certain areas of XfDs. For example, at WP:DELSORT/Football, it's common to see "Delete, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL" over and over again, even largely from the same editors, even for years. There's just not a lot of ways to say "lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources". That may be true for 9 out of 10 articles that are nominated, so everybody ends up saying "fails GNG" over and over and over again. I don't agree that this doesn't really add much to the discussion–not every XfD really needs a lot of discussion, after all. With the football AfDs, noms basically say "I searched and can't find GNG sources" ("fails GNG"), and three or four editors say, "Yup, I also can't find GNG sources" ("fails GNG"), and so having three or four editors all say "fails GNG" is useful insofar as it indicates that multiple editors have searched and have been unable to find in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. So it is with WP:POG. It's no secret that the overwhelming majority of portals fail POG–they're not broad enough, don't have enough readers and maintainers, etc., and when they "fail POG" there's really little else to say other than that. Now, you may say, "if the overwhelming majority of portals fail POG, why don't we find a more efficient way to process them?" The answer, I think, is: because a group of editors insisted that we go through them one-by-one. So, there's 1,000+ portals that fail POG, we're going to go through them one by one, and that means 1,000 "fails POG" !votes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sometimes I try to break up that monotony by making a joke, that's basically the best solution I've been able to come up with to this problem. – Levivich 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Leviv Thank you for defending me in this matter. You captured my perspective on portals perfectly, so there's very little that I can add. @Geolodus, it's not my fault that a seemingly endless stream of portals have the same exact failures of WP:POG, so that my MfD votes often sound similar, especially when I am responding to @BrownHairedGirl's exceedingly comprehensive noms. If that upsets you, then you should take it up with the people who made these heaps of abandoned portals and those editors that are forcing a one by one cleanup effort. I assure you, I've done a considerable amount of examination and research on these portals. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Geolodus, I recommend that you look at a wider selection of NH12's MFD !votes. They are more varied than your comments suggest.

Where the nomination is well-researched and detailed, NH12 does indeed post a fairly standard shortish reply. But when the nomination is skimpier, they often provide a lot more detail. And NH12's research is v thorough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, this certainly caused quite a discussion. I wasn't really upset, just a bit ... concerned, for lack of a better word. As stated in my original comment, I wasn't directly arguing against NH12 or for useless portals. Geolodus (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your ideas

		The Civility Barnstar
		for making a concerted effort to tag multiple editors when proposing a new idea on portals, including many editors holding pposing views.Sm8900 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I highly appreciated your effort to tag all participating editors when you posted your recent idea. I may have disagreed with it, but your willingness to make sure to include others in the discussion shows what Wikipedia is really all about. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)