User talk:Triptothecottage

On 3 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2003 Melbourne runaway train, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2003 Melbourne runaway train avoided a disastrous collision by less than a second? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2003 Melbourne runaway train. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2003 Melbourne runaway train), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Amakuru (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shepparton VLocities

Hey,

Just FYI, VLocities will be introduced on the Shepparton line eventually, per [1].

Anothersignalman (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anothersignalman: I'm well aware, but there's been no timeframe provided for the completion of Stage 2 and the introduction of VLos to revenue service there. Highly unlikely this year, I'd say. It could get a mention in the VLo article sourced to an RS but I'm not sure I see a compelling reason to do so. Wikipedia need not be ahead of the game, it just needs to be verifiable. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdance

hi - thank you for your message regarding Riverdance. No, we don't have a conflict of interest. When this article was first published in 2006 we were included as part of the article. Since then the attribution was removed. The video source clearly shows the presence of ANÚNA and the slightest effort to research the original performance of Riverdance would confirm our involvement. however, at some stage the attribution (not by us) was removed. Changing our username to conceal who we are seems rather disingenuous. But if thats what it takes to give the correct information then so be it. please advise and thank you for your speedy intervention. AnunaChoir (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnunaChoir: I'm afraid that if you click through and read the conflict of interest policy you will see you fall directly into that category. We discourage COI editing on Wikipedia for obvious reasons: though I am sure you are acting in good faith in this instance, and you have provided evidence to back up your claims, that is not always the case.

I'd suggest that you change your username to something like, say, "Aoife at AnunaChoir" or "AnunaChoir Tom". That way you don't have to conceal your links to Anuna but are no longer in violation of the username policy. Hope that's of some assistance. Triptothecottage (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - I have done that now and requested the change. Will the original entry be retained or will I have to do it all again? 79.97.209.190 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ministry of Transport

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ministry of Transport. Legobot (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Triptothecottage,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN comment

[2] The Transhuminist created or greatly influenced the portal guidelines. They are the undisputed project leader. They knew full well that a large portion of the community wanted to kill the whole Portal namespace yet he took the influx of uninformed editors that he created by nass tagging portals as permission to radically increase the number of portals why decreasing the quantity. Second, this discussion is hosted at AN (which is highly watched) but also showing in full at WP:CSD talk where we would normally create CSD criteria. It is also advertised at Village pump and linked from other locations so your comments should be reexamined. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: As far as the location of the discussion is concerned, it’s fairly difficult to ignore the not one, not two but three threatening edit notices warning non-administrators that their contribution to AN is probably not welcome. That the rules technically allow non-admins to comment on this discussion is not really relevant: this is an issue of perception and making policy in a venue which generally discourages wide participation is poor form.

Moreover, hosting this content issue in the same forum as the discussion about the conduct issue relating to TTH is inappropriate. You and a variety of other editors seem to be conflating the two, arguing that TTH’s behaviour in creating the portals was unacceptable (which I agree with) and therefore all the portals thus created should be nuked from orbit. Plainly, this is faulty logic. As other have observed, the presence of potentially useful – if esoteric – portals among the creations calls into question whether a "delete on sight" policy is actually appropriate.

Perhaps most importantly, none of this actually addresses the main thrust of my !vote, which is that these portals are doing no great harm to the encyclopaedia and thus there is no reason to be hasty in "dealing" with them. No one is under any obligation to maintain them and so the argument that they "take editor time away from content" is faulty. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extend that logic to articles and we can toss out WP:N and WP:V. We need appropriate guidelines and rules around what we have as portals. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Slavery

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2b2t(TwoBuildersTwoTools)

Thank you for the message! I am new to wikipedia and appreciate you taking the time to help me out. This is my first try at creating something. Before I created the draft/article, I noticed that several people had tried before but had been deleted for bad content, not citing sources, etc. I tried to make my draft as formal as possible so it would meet wikipedia's standards. What advice do you have for me about improving my draft to make it avalible for mainspace? Is my subject notable enough to be on wikipedia in the first place? Again, thanks for helping me out. Jreesebot (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]