User talk:Iseult

Archives

hey i made a article of abbu sharma .i gave u the reason below u can check here and can give the review .i belong to india

hey, i am working on this article. We have opened a software company and our software has placed more then 100 places. So i will update this article day by day and i am sure it will not let you down. i will give my 100% here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbupandit22 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

Featured content: This week's featured content

Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Tizzard

Hi, you replaced a speedy tag that I removed as a third party editor , that is not allowed. Colin Tizzard is very welll known horse trainer just google him.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I'm afraid that editors may remove only PROD tags: AfD and speedy tags cannot be removed without prior discussion. For speedy tags, click on the button that says 'contest this speedy deletion' which appears inside the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page, upon which administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page, all of which is described on the speedy tag itself. Dschslava (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that is for the page creator, a third party editor can remove any speedy without discussion,though a reason should be given in the edit summary I checked this out at the teahouse and was advised by admin before I started doing it.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you reimposed the speedy tag for a third time I will take this to AI . Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: that's a bit of a stretch. I wasn't quite aware of the third party clause in that thing. Dschslava (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you remove the speedy then? As I don't want to do 3 reverts. I've left evidence of a RS on the talkpage, there are plenty more.thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Atlantic306: I'd rather leave the decision up to an admin. I'm sure that they will take the appropriate actions. Dschslava (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'm not bothering with the AI, but refusing speedys is allowed by any third party editor, including yourself for example Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space food

Hello, Dschslava -- I have Space food on my watchlist and out of curiosity looked at your edits. I wonder if we could discuss this edit, changing "inadequate" to "adequate". I think "inadequate" makes more sense because it says "the risk of". "Risk" implies the chance of encountering a dangerous situation, and an inadequate food supply on a long journey through outer space is definitely a dangerous situation. If you wanted to re-word the sentence so that you could use "an adequate food supply", you might word it as follows:

to research ways to ensure an adequate food supply.

I agree, though, that "to research the risk of [something]" sounds a little odd – perhaps "to investigate the risk of" or "to explore the risk of", but those are not much different – but, because an adequate food supply is a matter of life and death, I wouldn't be surprised if NASA researched the risk of an inadequate food supply.

– Corinne (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: the original sentence gave the impression that NASA was on a futile mission. As such, I attempted to remedy the situation, and in my opinion your proposed solution fits the bill capitally. Dschslava (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Curran - journalist speedy deletion

Hi there, you marked John Curran (journalist II) for speedy deletion. I am including it because he was a prominent contributor to the Associated Press who died young. Is part of the reason for deleting the article because of the title? I wrote "journalist II" because there's another journalist by the name of John Curran who also has a Wikipedia page now. Is there a better way of putting this?

If you think he wasn't prominent, let's discuss that. I think the number of news-people who wrote obituaries and letters at the time of his death is indicative of his impact. SocraticOath (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SocraticOath: It is my belief that he was not prominent per the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. Dschslava (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012, John Curran was the recipient of an "under suspicion" award from "The Deadline Club" in New York. http://www.ap.org/states/northwest/Newsletter.htm

Also in 2012, Curran's team won the Charles Rowe Award for Distinguished State Reporting for work on Hurricane Irene. http://vtdigger.org/2012/07/11/vermont-associated-press-staff-wins-prestigious-award-for-tropical-storm-irene-coverage/ and http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2012/Joplin-Mo-tornado-coverage-wins-APME-award

John is not to be confused with John Curran (journalist), which is a reason for including this article.

Contestants in the Miss America pageant honored John by naming a scholarship after him. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/miss-america-honor-late-ap-writer-john-curran

Less notably, a John Curran story was part of the "2000 Darwin Awards". http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2000-12.html

Convinced yet? :) SocraticOath (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SocraticOath: for one, the Darwin Award is awarded not to the reporter but to the hapless victim. The other awards, however, may qualify under the very vague 'well-known and significant' clause of the requirement. I must note, however, that it is 'well-known and significant, not 'well-known 'or significant. Dschslava (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny... I remember laughing about the Darwin Awards in school... I wasn't thinking of that as an award but an example of a minor but enduring contribution to the field of journalism. SocraticOath (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]