User talk:Markdask

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being one of the top 50 reviewers (35) of the last 12 months. Thank you very much for your reviewing! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Harper Whitley

Hi There, did you read the article? It wasn't written in the form of a person, it was written in the same form as all other Shortland Street articles. Besides, the article is still a work in progress. The character has been a regular on the show for 5 years now and the characters info is just too large to be in the list of characters, maybe you could help edit the article to develop the character. But she defiantly needs a page. There are other points to be bought up too, such as her relationship with Drew and Nicole. Thanks, Hatio93 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Hatio93. If you click on any other character in the list they don't have their own page but they do have lots of info about the character; some more, some less. And each character even have their own infobox. In your case I think your work will look great in the list. Just to be supportive I will add an infobox to the Harper Whitley section - but only same as every other character. You are very welcome to add as much text as you like about Harper Whitley, but what's important to understand is that Harper Whitely is only Notable within the context of the series in which she exists, and not as a standalone being. So give me 30 minutes and I will produce the infobox. Then you can write away. If you need a copy of your work it is readily available - it aint vanished okay? Check back on the list in 30 minutes okie? Mark^Dask

Hi Again, if you look in the navigational template, there are many characters with their own articles. Chris Warner and Leanne Black to name a few. I have reverted the edits on Harper Whitley. The characters for that list are only ones that have played minor stints in the show. It is not meant for long pieces of writing. Check out some Neighbours articles too, many main characters have their own page, for example Terese Willis and their articles perfectly show them within the series. What your suggesting is not standard for WP:SOAPS. There are guidelines that are discussed on here to how fictional soap opera characters should be written. The "Creation and casting" section is the only part that says anything about Ria Vandervis, that plays the role of Harper, as it should as it provides information about her casting. Look at those other soap articles I suggested and you will be able to see this. Hatio93 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, I have spent a lot of time working on the mess that Shortland Street articles are today. I have also spent many hours of my time to create Harper Whitley. The article is still a work in progress. I am finding more sources and info. It also important to understand that the page is important as the character involved in a high profile storyline involving abortion. It is crucial when a character is tackling a storyline this big. Hatio93 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it aint exactly my field Hatio93, and I've checked out some of the links you provided - yup - the field is yours . You write very well btw - Mark^Dask 18:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks user:Markdask, I admire your dedication to editing . Hatio93 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Il Destino (Classical Crossover Duo)

Dear Markdask, I have raised an objection to your speedy deletion of the Il Destino article on the grounds one of the duo, Jon Christos is particulaly notable, and major cruise ship operaters are renowned for the quality of their entertainers. I feel one person should not act as judge, jury and executioner when contributors like myself sometimes spends weeks dilligenty preparing articles for submission. I hope you can now remove the tag in this case as you have really discouraged me from parpicitating writing articles for Wikipedia in the future. I suggest maybe the article can be a designated as a stub rather than remove it altogether? Regards, Alfshire. Alfshire (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alfshire, thank you for getting in touch. I'm at work rt now - will address the matter this evening - I have meanwhile removed the tag :). Mark^Dask 12:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Mark, I do understand you need to be vigilant, maybe I should have created it a stub so more information can be added as time goes on. Alfshire (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Alfshire – let me first say you present your articles very well – as a new-page reviewer I wish more people would make such effort. Secondly, I do not use the “Speedy delete” tag lightly, i.e. it is not merely a matter of my opinion when I use it. Thirdly, the “speedy” tag is not a decision made – only administrators can delete an article and I am not an admin, merely a reviewer, so when I use the speedy tag its no more than a referral for consideration. Much of my work is as a “wiki-gnome” - when I come across an article that fits the “Notability” criteria but needs technical assistance, I can sometimes invest a lot of time researching a subject in order to improve an article before “approving” it. A favorite of mine is Damat Ali-Paša's Turbeh, on which I spent five hours researching and adding the infobox / photo / map / coordinates and references in order to bring it up to “encyclopedic” standards. Now while very few people will ever read the article, (the title is Serbian), what makes it encyclopedic is that it is a unique historical monument with a very illustrious provenance.Therein lies the difficulty virtually every novice experiences, (as I well know from back in the day) – what is “encyclopedic”?

The key word for any article even before finger hits key is Notability – a page that (with hindsight) every new editor should have to read closely. And “who says” a subject is notable? A good example of notability is Malala Yousafzai – and she's barely 20. In the case of Jon Christos I would say yes but half of the references you introduced on his page are either blogs, dead or unrelated, (very common mistakes among new editors). In the case of Adam Lacey, check all 8 references – (google Adam lacey) – not one national newspaper article – so nope, not notable. But what's most relevant here is the subject is neither singer, but the times both singers perform together as Il Destino, and of the nine references on the page, only 3 refer to the subject; one is a local gig, (Ribble Valley), one is an advertizement, (Warner Leisure Hotels), and the last is their own website, none of which qualify as “Independent sources”.

Lastly Alf – and you gotta give me some credit here for patience – between Dec 24th '15 and Jan 17th '16 you [Wikipedia:Articles for creation|submitted] a draft of Glen Gabriel four times and you were declined four times by four different senior editors, the first 3 of which are very senior admins, so for you to have simply posted the article nine days ago is a little bit naughty . In fairness it should have been explained to you why the draft was declined on the first occasion – which would have saved both you and me a lotta effort, but at least now you know why. I have now tagged all three pages questioning “Notability”, but please don't think I'm being mean here – if I didn't tag them I couldn't mark them as “reviewed” and some other reviewer would inevitably have come along and “speedied” them. This way you have time to read up on Notability – check the references – and finally accept the three articles are dead ducks. Please don't feel you've wasted your time. Perhaps consider them as practice runs. You are clearly a more experienced editor for the exercise and I have no doubt you will make immensely worthy contributions in the future. I will of course be happy to assist with your next project, I'm quite a good researcher given a worthwhile subject . For now though, please save me some time, sift through those 55 refs on the Jon Christos page and remove blogs/dead/irrelevant links. Mark^Dask 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)3

I should also emphasize Alfshire, the standards for Biographies of Living Persons are even more stringent than other articles so please do not be tempted to remove the tags yourself. Mark^Dask 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mark, I realise you are an expert in your field, but I'm still adamant Glen Gabriel is notable, even if only for his two nominated Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Some very famous stars have been nominated in the past by that organisation, so in my opinion he is notable for that distiction. I have to say I had issues in the past with some holier than though editors on Wikipedia over some submissions (you aren't one I hasten to add) which is why I re-submitted Gabriel's as a new article 'stub' for others to improve on. I will take on board you advice and appreciate all your time and effort. Regards, Alf Alfshire (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Malagasy politicians

Hate to be a nitpicker, but I don't agree that they meet CSD A7 - there is an assertion of notability, as both articles are about members of a national legislature. (See WP:POLITICIAN.) What they lack is references...which were there when I created the articles, but which appear in both cases to have been stripped out for one reason or another. I'm working on finding them again, but it will have to wait until later in the day, the way things are going now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ser Amantio di Nicolao. maybe they are politicians today, but are they "Remarkable" people? I think it is sufficient for them to be listed in the main article, (if current), but to make a seperate page for every politician who is/was is not justified. I will redirect rather than tag CSD in future. Mark^Dask 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well...I think they are remarkable people, just as members of other national legislatures are. I don't agree with redirecting the articles, simply because I wouldn't do that for members of any other national legislature. Better to expand them if possible...it appears that at least one can be expanded with information about his Lutheran activities. I will attempt to do so when I have time, but that won't be likely until later today, if not later in the week.

But then, I'm an inclusionist, too. So there you go. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie Ser Amantio di Nicolao I'll remove CSD and question Notability instead. Thanks for getting in touch . Mark^Dask 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Any time. I'll try to get in there and work on the articles soon. But...well, I forget easily, so feel free to give me a little poke now and again. :-)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: Where did Denmark's first computer go, to the HamNet? (Check us out at www.tobeornotto.be!*)

*Please note - I don't actually know where this leads. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dinesh Nandan Sahay

Hello Markdask. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dinesh Nandan Sahay, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:NPOL. Thank you. Jujutacular (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Tendamix

It has come to my attention that Tendamix has been marked for speedy deletion. I ask that you give me more time to add more information to the article.

Thanks.

Thanks for reviewing Kalekuri Prasad

Thanks for the valuable suggestion on new article Kalekuri Prasad and usage of words "well known" and "important role".i agree with you. I will try to change those words or try to explain the importance of article adding few more citations and edit article.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Markdask. 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)

Galileo University

Hey, I'm guessing you just pressed the wrong button, but you cannot put a BLP prod on a non BLP article, and even then, it must have absolutely no references. Even an external link that could reasonably construed as a source disqualifies a blp from BLP PROD. Articles created before a certain date are also ineligible. I see no reason you cannot apply a regular prod. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction John from Idegon. Yes it was accidental. Right now I'm working through the BLP backlog, (2015), and came upon Eduardo Suger - an article begging for deletion in order to clear the backlog of un-notable BLPs, hence the accident - I was preloaded lol. I promise I aint scattergunning the list - I'm taking time to properly review each article in the list, but hell we do have an awesome number of skeletons in the BLP cupboard . I will pay more attention - and again - thanks. Btw is Galileo University even a thing? (DELETE). The one link is PRIVATE. I will leave it to yourself to decide its fate. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't know and frankly don't really care. Your prod caused it to be listed on the article alerts for WikiProject schools, where I am one of the coordinators. I looked at it to try to determine why it showed up on our alerts, as universities are not our bailiwick. Failed at that, but now it's on my watchlist, so I may get back to it some year. Lol. Happy editing, and Merry Christmas! John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nicolas Cowan

I'm not offended. I am slightly confused. The article in question is over a decade old at this point. I know longevity doesn't necessarily indicate relevance, I'm just confused as to why it took so long to get tagged. Vercalos (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vercalos, I'm very sorry if my recent PROD of this article has upset you but the rules of today are considerably more demanding than they were 10 years ago. Let me explain. As you can see on my userpage, I am a gnome, a BLP rescuer and a new page reviewer. In both the latter I choose to work on "oldest" articles, because they don't attract the fierce heat of instant argument, (hence gnome). I do ordinary stuff like housekeeping.

Whereas it might have been acceptable to an administrator like Atama to consider Nicolas Gowan Notable in May 2008, (as he did here), the terms he uses to justify his argument, namely WP:ENTERTAINER, make explicit that Nicolas Gowan is nowhere in the ballpark of acceptable today. I should also point out that Atama's perspective is clearly outdated given he has only made 21 edits since July '14, (check his contribs).

As for Gowan himself, his IMDB high point was in 1993, when the movie you mention had a limited showing in the US and then bombed. Gowan has not since acted in anything - he is therefore not an "actor" in Wikipedia terms.

I note that since the "No Sources" tag was placed on the article in March 2015 you, as creator of the article, (2006), have made no attempt to improve the article, therefore for you now to express concern for the article is kinda thin. I am not an admin so have no authority to actually delete the article, but for our purposes here I think it best if we agree this parrot is deceased . Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't care all that much, and if you hadn't notified me, I'd have never noticed. As you pointed out, I created the article, which is something I had even forgotten at this point, and failed to offer any substantial edits to the article after its creation. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because you brought it to my attention. As to this:

"I note that since the "No Sources" tag was placed on the article in March 2015 you, as creator of the article, (2006), have made no attempt to improve the article, therefore for you now to express concern for the article is kinda thin."

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was concerned about it, or why you felt the need to criticize my supposed concern for the article. I was just surprised that it came up at all. As I pointed out before, it has been over a decade, so long I had forgotten I'd even created it. I spent a good few minutes browsing around trying to figure out why you even notified me, before looking at the history and realizing I created it.--Vercalos (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)