User talk:SoWhy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:20, 23 July 2019

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

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 // Index

Wikimania 2020 Bangkok

Hi. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amin Shehzad

I think your declination of CSD on this page might have been an error. It was a recreation of a page that was CSDed not 12 hours ago. The creator is eponymous. They've violated 3RR and blanked entire page, removed tags, removed CSD tags, etc. after this version was created. The stats, not even name could be verified from the only source. May be the CSD was reported with a wrong criterion, please look at the previously deleted page, its history, talk page, history of the current page and contribution history of the creator if you have the time. I have reported the user to Vandalism noticeboard as well. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Previous speedy deletions are not binding, especially not when performed by an admin with a track record of bad decisions in that area. The behavioral problems are indeed problematic and I've blocked the editor as a SPA account. As for the article, you are correct. I missed that the claims are not credible, so I deleted it now. Apologies for the inconvenience. Regards So Why 08:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift action and answer (that's illuminating as well). No inconvenience at all. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 09:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my article

Hi Was wondering why my article has been deleted as I have produced reference with it. Please reply to me and help me in restoring my article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyupdate (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mightyupdate: I assume you refer to Shaheel Kunnath Palliyalil? Easy, because the article contained no reason to assume that the subject was significant or important and a search for reliable sources about the subject turned up empty too. You did add two links but neither can be qualified as a reliable source. As such, I cannot restore the article at this time. If and when you can provide reliable sources (real newspapers, books, academic journals etc.) covering the subject in detail, this can be discussed again. Regards So Why 07:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

Partnerships
#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Yes. A principled defense. Even IPs should have access to WP:PROD. Well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Thank you very much!

Regards So Why 16:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help to save the article

Dear Sowhy i need your help to save this article because as far as i know a stub article with reliable references is notable, kindly look in to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zcode_System.Eomck (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eomck: While I agree that Stwalkerster made a mistake deleting this article as unambiguously promotional since the text was mostly acceptable, I don't see any reason to assume the article would have survived a deletion discussion, since the subject is not notable as far I can tell. The "sources" in the article certainly do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources and I cannot find any others online. If you disagree, you need to ask Stwalkerster to reverse their decision or, if they refuse, initiate a deletion review. Regards So Why 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Press releases

Using official records for a statement of fact like the number of votes received is in my opinion better. The BBC article is not a good example either, as it shows localism in the very first line ("despite strong opposition earlier from Britain"), so it's more biased (as in geographically biased) than the Europen Commission communication. Nemo 06:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: I think you misunderstand that point. The "localism" you mention is merely a neutral statement of fact. The UK government's opposition to Juncker is a well-established fact (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]). Noting this fact does not make the BBC source "biased" in any way. On the other hand, the "official record" you cite has all the hallmarks of a subjective press release, using phrases like "a strong majority" and consisting mainly of political statements of the candidate. Regards So Why 06:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact but an irrelevant one, you wouldn't put it in the lead section of the Wikipedia article for instance. The speech of the candidate of course contains political statements, but the reference was only using the introduction above it. Nemo 06:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: Actually, it's a quite notable fact, that definitely needs to be included in an article about the candidacy or the candidate and in fact was included in his article prominently. But it still does not disqualify the BBC or Politico for that matter as reliable secondary sources for this fact, so I'm still unsure why you think the primary press release that contains clearly subjective language is a better source than either secondary source I mentioned. Regards So Why 07:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark White

Hi, I saw you doing the cleanup on the Mark White page. The author moved it to Draft to try & avoid my speedy. As I noted here Draft_talk:Mark_White_Jr this is a page that's been repeatedly deleted then recreated by someone who's had multiple sock puppets banned. This is pretty clearly a new one, I'd already reached out to someone else for help opening a new SPI. I don't know if there's a way to speedy a draft under the circumstances? Thanks for your help! JamesG5 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a paid editor of this entity what can I do to redeem his name ? Elizabethg507 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid contributions

Hi i was paid a few years ago to write about entity markdabeast1 is there a way we can clear this up ? Elizabethg507 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 I’m a paid editor of this entity what can I do to redeem his name ? [[User:Elizabethg507|Elizabethg507]] ([[User talk:Elizabethg507|talk]]) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
+== Paid contributions ==
+Hi i was paid a few years ago to write about entity [[markdabeast1]] is there a way we can clear this up ? [[User:Elizabethg507|Elizabethg507]] ([[User talk:Elizabethg507|talk]]) 08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)