User talk:Discospinster/Archive35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astypohu

Astypohu is clearly a vandalism-only account so I've indef'ed it as such. I had to overwrite your warning so as not to send a mixed message. Sorry, don't mean to tread on your toes. — Scott • talk 22:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. ... discospinster talk 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Party

It's hardly non-constructive. Listing all of the Abbott government's failures in a list section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.28.196 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's uncited and not neutral. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

Considering there is now the tool for template editors (and the fact that vandal won't stop with that page), is possible to reduce the protection of Cat Creek, Montana from WP:GOLDLOCK to WP:PINKLOCK? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not sure what the article has to do with template editing? ... discospinster talk 02:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out. ... discospinster talk 02:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure the WP:PINKLOCK is appropriate here, since the page is not a template and also is not transcluded? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't find fair Wikipedia pages are full-protected when it is not due to an edit-war. In this case the editor is a long-term vandal that has no intentions to stop, what it is likely to happen is the page will end up indefinitely full-protected. Even if WP:ORANGELOCK is approved, this person has demostrated he will game the system autoconfirming himself just to add his Puma-related vandalism. WP:PINKLOCK is not given to everyone (I don't have it as I don't require it), but since 2012 no one has expanded the article, no one has made an edit, or making technical changes. Although it won't be a high traffic page, maybe it can be improved by any of the template editors, if they decide to go there. Some page are PC2 protected[1], even when it is not officially in use. It is more like "if a P&G avoids you to improve the site, just ignore it" case, it's maybe not a template, but if a lower protection allows non-sock editing, it wouldn't be incorrect. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana‎‎

Hello, I noticed that you are the admin that protected the article Cat Creek, Montana‎‎ with template protection. I'm sure that it was just a mis-click (and you are not the first one that has done it that I have found) and as a result there is an {{Edit template-protected}} request on Talk:Cat Creek, Montana‎‎ which needs you attention. (Yeah, any admin could do it, but I figured I'd offer it to you first as the protecting admin). Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I changed it back to full article protection. Thanks for letting me know. ... discospinster talk 04:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RRH Staxton Wold

Good Evening

Can you please delete the redirect RRH Staxton Wold so I can move RAF Staxton Wold there please?

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. ... discospinster talk 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishanth

Hello. I came across the article Nishant (or) Nishanth, which was moved there quite a while ago from Nishant (name) for a reason given in an edit summary. I figured I'd check that someone entering either name would at least be redirected there, but discovered that Nishanth doesn't exist and that you protected it in 2009. Is it safe at this point to unprotect it and redirect it to Nishant (or) Nishanth? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Block request

Hi. Can you block User:Super Sintex? This is a sock of locked user User:Gokufan8989 per my running CU on Commons. INeverCry 04:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a what?, I'm a sock of anybody.
Super Sintex
....(What is he talking about?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Sintex (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI that block requests can be made on WP:AIV. You can also discuss certain issues on WP:AN and WP:ANI. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the user anyway, it was clearly a sockpuppet. ... discospinster talk 04:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I figured I'd ask you because I saw you were around. Can you block talk for that account, as he's continuing on his talkpage? This user has 2 globally locked accounts. I've emailed the checkuser info to stewards, but that could take a bit. INeverCry 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk! Junvfr ツ (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ... discospinster talk 01:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Oh my! How could I possibly forget about you? I've seen you on anti-vandalism patrol, and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions. It's my tradition to award barnstars to any vandal fighter I happen to run into while doing my rounds, and while I'm falling behind on that, at least some people are getting their shiny barnstars. So, here's yours!

Note: There's a special gun hidden behind this barnstar. Just push the button and it will expand to its full size. Just fire it and 50 vandals will immediately vapourize. Have fun with it! K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. ... discospinster talk 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ur message

I did not do any thing to edit this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.27.108 (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
A while back I created a joke association that I accidentally put on a mainspace page! I didn't know what I did wrong at the time, but I'd like to thank you belatedly for userifying the page and for tolerating an inexperienced mistake. Origamite (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ... discospinster talk 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Flying Training School RAF

Good Evening

Please can you please delete No. 1 Flying Training School RAF so I can move No. 1 Flying Training School there.

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's done. ... discospinster talk 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

keep removing links

hello. i found out that you are the one that keeps removing links to checklist.com. The page was changed a few months back to something that was much better. and not it was changed again to some silly garbage which seems like a tribute to atul gewande and his book.

I noticed that you keep removing a link to checklist.com that actually has many examples of checklists and i find useful as a user of checklists. your message that it is inappropriate is wrong in my opinion. Just because it is an external link does not make it wrong and there are millions of them on wikipedia. I suggest you look at the site the next time you remove a link. It is quite annoying that I take my time to contribute and another fellow editor just removes it and places a standard message of read our guidelines.

thank you in advance for making wikipedia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.36.9 (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Phines West page deletion

Good day

you have t a mark on a page call "Phines West" For speedy deletion. the page was greated with out a lot of info. now i have all the facts so i need you to remove the delete mark.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1017west (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

2601:E:1980:532::/64

I noticed that you have been interacting with this editor. I did a search of this user's contributions here. He seems to just make unsourced and false changes to dates and gets somewhat belligerent when reverted. It looks like he is able to change IPs when he gets blocked so blocks seem useless. I was wondering if a range block of range 2601:E:1980:532::/64 might be more effective in stopping his disruptive contributions. As an ipv6 range there should not be too much collateral damage and the constant changes in this user's IP make me suspicious that the range is an anonymizer of some sort. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I don't have any experience with range blocks though, so I can't do it myself. ... discospinster talk 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GMONEY43E6430

Say, since you just partially reverted GMONEY43E6430 on Cats and Bruises, could you check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TweetiePie1947 if you have a chance? I'm fairly certain that GMONEY is a TweetiePie sock. Trivialist (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Could be, but it's not 100% clear. A CheckUser is probably in order. ... discospinster talk 04:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You left me a message that you deleted a link I added to Retail Radio...

But I never added a link.. can you tell me what the link was? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.187.74 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The message was meant for whomever was editing under that IP address before you. If you look at the contributions for the IP address (Special:Contributions/66.195.187.74), it will tell you what edits were made. ... discospinster talk 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Hey Discospinster! Your recent reverts with 10.X.X.XX such as this, I've opened a discussion over at Wikipedia:AN#Possible bot malfunctioning?. This seems to be an issue with Toolservers bots so please be advised. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Abacha Page

Your write up is far from neutral and seeks to cast the man in a positive light. The facts (both negative and positive) of his administration should be laid bare for any reader to make their own deductions. That's the spirit of wikipedia. Your write-up is not fair. hence, I've added other proven FACTS i believe you intentionally left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.58.180 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Without sources backing up what you are adding, it's not appropriate to add such commentary. ... discospinster talk 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disregards to Your Editing of the Article of "Allendale Charter Township"

Hello, I have recently discovered your undoings of my editing work on Allendale Charter Township's article. You may be unaware that the changes I have made are indeed 100% valid, due to the fact that Andrew Gage and Nathan Roon have recently been elected as joint township supervisors. Please reconsider your actions.

Coulson Town F.C.

Hi Discospinster,

I am one of the owners of the football.mitoo site and we recently updated the urls to be football.mitoo.co rather than the old football.mitoo.co.uk. You will see that it redirects to the .co. I am merely updating the entries. Pleas could you change my edit back to .co

You can change it back, but be sure to say what you're doing in the edit summary field so that other editors know it's a valid edit. ... discospinster talk 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

rollback use

You should probably really watch how you're using that. My edit here was in no way vandalism and you in no way gave a legit reason why you reverted it. Isn't rollback supposed to be used just for vandalism? Second Skin (talk)

To be honest, when someone adds an unknown "internet idol" to a list of notable people, without any indication of the person's notability, and without an edit summary, in my experience it has been vandalism. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. ... discospinster talk 14:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In an article on adult actresses, I added in the term "proffesional whores". You see, the reason I did this was because i did not feel it was right for a woman to put her body on display like that, and I believe women, in general, should be treated with greater respect.

Deletion of an article

As I have been editing this page I do not understand its deletion. If possible could you please reinstate it, as it is an actual person. He is known for all the things I listed, within my region and his popular name has been recently made. Even if it does sound very much like a troll of some sort it is legitimate. Thank you for your time, Mambom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mambom (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. ... discospinster talk 01:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Shekinah Radiance Academy

Hello Shekinah Radiance Academy is a public school serving the greater Rockwall area, just as Rockwall ISD and Fate ISD, we receive state funding and are open to the public. In no way would it be any more inappropriate to post our information than any of the other education facilities listed. I would think it a professional courtesy to resubmit the data to the Education tab of the City of Fate. Tim M.eD Shekinah Radiance Academy, a local Charter K-6 School which is free to all students (972) 636-0055 http://www.shekinah-edu.com. [[2]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timcalex (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly attempting to promote/advertise the school. You even did so in this talk page message. ... discospinster talk 14:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Swahili language

Hi. Just a heads up that they're back. I'll watch it while I can and at least one other is on it but it might end up needing PP again if it isn;t just a one-off. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. ... discospinster talk 21:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

LT article

You were the last person to delete the article on Lynne Triplett. I would like it back; I have sources which go on about the person in general. --YasminPerry (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an attack page. It's not protected, so you can rewrite an article that's in line with Wikipedia's rules. ... discospinster talk 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

siting published articles

Can you please tell me if it is ok and appropriate to edit either "references" or "additional reading", etc. by adding published articles about the topic? For instance, if the page is about a certain type of door, can I add a published article that explains all components of that door, etc.? Please advise. Thanks.

Sharon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shdarian (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but not in a way that promotes a commercial enterprise. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

96.246.198.77

96.246.198.77 has been adding non-request material to WP:AFC/R, I see you've blocked them. Would it be a violation of the WP:3RR if I revert the material they added? Thanks. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, not if it's clear vandalism. ... discospinster talk 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Here you can see what they were doing. I know the WP:3RR says that you can revert three times on any given page if it's clear vandalism, but this seems more like disruptive editing. I told them to stop adding sections at Afc/R that weren't requests, but they did it again. If it would be a violation, could you remove it for me? --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've declined the "request" so at least now it's hidden. ... discospinster talk 00:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I guess declining those would be best, thank you! --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice

In the process of collecting data for updating the page for "Russia" (for Sochi Olympics results), I had noticed some activity you were involved in with user Lazek. I was about to revert a POV-problem edit when I noticed that you were already well into a revert notification cycle with that user. Apparently that user waited one day before reverting on you once again. Did you notice this? I was about to revert again but thought to check with you first since you had started the notification process already and near to complete it. Could you glance at this? (Here is the diff of that users last revert against you: 15:49, 10 March 2014‎ Lazeks042186 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,725 bytes) (+1,060)‎). FelixRosch (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics? When some of the info was re-added, this time it was accompanied by a reliable source (The Wire), so it didn't have the same "original research" problem as before. ... discospinster talk 15:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was it exactly. By the time I returned to the page, user Kiri had already done all the edits I was planning perfectly. On a related issue, I noticed that the page for one of the Gold medal winners has had a return problem editor who is pressing the same Adelina Sotnikova issue on her page, this time by User SirE. This user seemed to settle down for a while on reverts last month and is now making a return appearance with more of the same. I wasn't sure what to do about these cases of someone who makes multiple reverts, settles down for a while, and then returns to start the same reverts all over again. Should I offer to do another correction to the Lede, or is this just fueling User SirE? Maybe a template sent from you might help. Here is the list of harsh diffs from that user last month;

(cur | prev) 15:26, 22 February 2014‎ Sir E... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,287 bytes) (+1,068)‎ . . (Facts are facts and this is a controversial win undoubtedly reported all over media) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 14:44, 22 February 2014‎ Sir E... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,219 bytes) (-2,598)‎ . . (Will report for vandalism if revert again without stating reason.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 14:08, 22 February 2014‎ Trijnstel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,817 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (fix?) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:48, 22 February 2014‎ Yappers1000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,796 bytes) (-1,427)‎ . . (update) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:45, 22 February 2014‎ Sir E... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,223 bytes) (+1,427)‎ . . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 09:05, 22 February 2014‎ Yappers1000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,796 bytes) (-357)‎ . . (update) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 09:03, 22 February 2014‎ Yappers1000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,153 bytes) (-1,069)‎ . . (update) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:58, 22 February 2014‎ Sir E... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,222 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:57, 22 February 2014‎ Sir E... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,213 bytes) (+1,418)‎ . . (undo | thank)

Possibly you could see if SirE is forming a 'situation'. His/her last revert again is yesterday on this. FelixRosch (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the SirE situation. After noting your edit, the problem at the "Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles" Page has resurfaced and resulted in over 200 (two hundred) contentious edits there over the last twenty-four hours. There appears to be a very contentious collision among all those editors and I tried to revert to your last reliable version from 8 March. This is to at least safeguard what the ISU has actually stated. Could you look at this at the "Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles" Page? FelixRosch (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Quick update on FelixRosch's comment. Further discussion can be found on FelixRosch's talk page and mine. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(Reset margin for ease of reading)

Same editor SirE is back... with same series of disruptive edits. Thanks for your revert of him/her from 18March which worked temporarily, but that editor has returned for another go at disruptive edits, same issue. These are the diffs from yesterday, this is the third month in a row of these repeated disruptive edits from SirE. Since he/she is ignoring your previous simple revert, this seems intentional by SirE (this is for Adelina Sotnikova after seeing your note below to User:Kiri):

(cur | prev) 16:17, 22 April 2014‎ SirE... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,832 bytes) (+79)‎ . . (Undid revision 605075318 by Kir... (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 19:08, 21 April 2014‎ Yap... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,753 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (update) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:50, 20 April 2014‎ Kir... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,754 bytes) (-79)‎ . . (Undid revision 605072308 by SirE... (talk) once again, that's your opinion) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:17, 20 April 2014‎ SirE... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,833 bytes) (+79)‎ . . (Undid revision 604684346 by Kir... (talk)) (undo | thank)

The last date of the repeat disruptive edits from SirE is yesterday. FelixRosch (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Probably the best route right now is to create a discussion at WP:NPOVN as outlined below in User talk:Discospinster#Figure Skating controversy. ... discospinster talk 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

loner article

You've just removed the nominate for delete without justifying why it should stay. Also, you remind the deletion tag far too quickly, that I believe you haven't even read the article to decide why it should not be deleted. If I'm honest it just feels like you're throwing round around admin-muscles to a new user.

The one who contests the proposed deletion does not have to justify why an article should stay. Even if the article is not that great, the procedure for a long-standing page is to either start a discussion with specific concerns, or if there's no hope for it, nominate it for deletion via WP:Articles for deletion to get a wider opinion. ... discospinster talk 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Truedau

You removed my note. You are asking for a citation. If my experience is not good enough, what kind of citation do you need to prove that I am now totally cured thanks to this book? I'll get you anything you need, but my experience needs to be included in this page. Mara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.217.14 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally personal experiences are not included in Wikipedia articles, unless these experiences have been otherwise noted by reliable sources such as newspapers. ... discospinster talk 17:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Micronation Notability

Sir, I have read through every single policy on the matter and I assure you that my edit complied as to the notability of the particular micronation. I'd be happy to demonstrate as to why, but a simple google search will do the same. This particular micronation is observed by many others like it as legitimate and sovereign, its duration of existence is long enough to justify reality, and it has maintained this status for some time. I was about to get to work on its own page actually, which would include more information. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is there has to be independent reliable sources discussing the micronation. I have looked on Google and I'm not finding much more than wikis, Facebook, discussion forums, etc. ... discospinster talk 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Those things all constitute legitimacy and authenticity, don't they? Many of the other micronations listed have the same. They maintain multiple websites as you can find on Google with most information located at http://universaltriumvirate.wikia.com/wiki/Universal_Triumvirate_Wiki, the fact that there is an entire wiki with 400+ articles dedicated to it should be proof enough that they are authentic. Other micronations have noted their legitimacy as well, which should go a step farther to demonstrate that. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether it exists or is legitimate, it's whether the subject is notable. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." ... discospinster talk 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I do think notability is genuine here though as well. Other micronations have noted it, which are independent sources designating that it does indeed exist and is notable. Its size and web presence (which is larger than many of the other micronations on that list - some of which have only one citizen total) also go to show notability. You stated you found forums discussing it, so on and so forth, for many micronations on the list that would not be the same case, right? Like I said, I'm just trying to provide accurate information here and I was about to get to work on a full Wikipedia page for the micronation like the others have. I was planning to include references there as well. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't heard back here, can I go ahead and get to work or will it be taken down again? I want to construct an accurate and in-depth page. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to start the article in your user space, so there is no danger of it being deleted for perceived lack of notability. E.g. User:Universal Triumvirate/Universal Triumvirate. This resource would be helpful to look at as well: WP:Your first article. ... discospinster talk 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll get to work. You can see the notability argument I've made though, right? There's reasonable basis for a page, or at least inclusion on a list that is supposed to encompass things of that sort. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add the page now, may I go ahead and add it to the list of micronations as well as make the page official? Then I can continue to work, as can others. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Universal Triumvirate: Pardon me butting in, but I can't help but notice there are no independent sources cited in your user draft. That would seem to mean that you have not met the general notability guideline mentioned by discospinster above. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I can find independent sources if you'd like...? But notability has been established. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, notability hasn't been established, because it depends on the existence of independent sources. Specifically significant discussion of the subject in independent, reliable sources. In other words, has the the micronation been noticed and talked about in well-known publications or web sites, by persons other than those involved. ... discospinster talk 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. The micronation has actually received requests for aide from other micronations and those in the online gaming/forum/micronation community and been the subject of research. Several studies have involved this particular micronation as well. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Where have these research studies been published, and what is the review process at the publishing journals? In other words, are the studies reliable sources? Other micronations, even if they are notable, are not reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that other micronations have approached and involved themselves on their own, after previously knowing nothing or having no association with this micronation, should stand for itself in terms of notability. I'm not making the argument that notability is huge here, of course it's not well known, but neither are any of the other dozens of micronations that have pages here. To quote the Wikipedia policy, "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance,' and even web content that editors personally believe are 'important' or 'famous' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice." The amount of content, recognition by foreign and unaffiliated sources, educational value, and relevance do give this micronation reasonable cause to be a page on this site. I'm not stating that it's the biggest and most important micronation in history, but I do believe that it merits a page and inclusion in a master list of micronations. After that, other editors can come through and perhaps provide more information. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read again the guidelines in WP:GNG. You have not provided any reliable sources to back up your claim that the micronation is notable. In the other micronation articles there are such sources, even for the most recently founded ones. Glacier Republic has an article in BBC News. Akhzivland and Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina are written about in the Sydney Morning Herald. ... discospinster talk 23:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is getting exhausting. Grand Duchy of Westarctica, Republic of Saugeais, Independent State of Rainbow Creek, Principality of Outer Baldonia, Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles, all have minimal sources as well (not more than one or two). Would I argue that any of them are more or less notable though? No. They are equal in my eyes and they should be in your own. I have reviewed the guidelines and not found any clear stance that strictly blocks this particular micronation from even being considered, especially after I put forth the effort to get references from unaffiliated sources. Notability is not strong, I'm agreeing with you, but notability exists, certainly more than some of the others I mentioned. Improving Wikipedia's database is something we should want to do, we shouldn't deny a page because it might not meet notability standards (though I state, as I'm sure others do, that it does), we should try to get it out there so as to get more information (potentially learning more and finding more references and sources). Universal Triumvirate (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You have not supplied reliable sources. That's what it comes down to. You've supplied a number of wikis, which anyone can edit, and so they are not reliable. The only non-wiki is a Weebly page of another non-notable micronation. I'm not sure how many ways it can be put. As it stands, Universal Triumverate is not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. You seem to want the article to exist so that the micronation can gain notability, and this is not how Wikipedia works. ... discospinster talk 02:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no personal interest in notability of the micronation, my intent is to put the information forward in a place that would be appropriate for it and to help round out Wikipedia's listing of micronations. Several of those other micronations have sources that are questionable or far more minimal. Wikis are managed by admins and communities who verify information, and other micronations publishing information doesn't weigh against notability, it weighs for it. One of the links I posted was even an assertion by wikia staff against this particular micronation. The fact that such a big fuss has been made over this is, frankly, infuriating. Here I am, trying to put up accurate information about a known institution, with sources to back it up (more sources than many of the other noted micronations, some of whom are much smaller in size and weaker in scope), and I'm being told that that's inappropriate because the nature of my sources is weak. You have seen the sources, you can find the information, there is no reason to deny the authenticity here. Let me ask this, aside from a minor notability disagreement, is there any other reason that this article would not qualify? Because, in my eyes, one minor disagreement with no clear consensus is not enough to block a page entirely. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you would like a wider opinion, besides myself and User:C.Fred, then you can try Wikipedia:Articles for creation or Wikipedia:Teahouse. ... discospinster talk 02:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Though the statement "I have no personal interest in notability of the micronation" won't hold much water in light of the fact you've declared yourself to be a representative of said micronation on your user page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I can be a member (as in... one who would have the knowledge to write about it) and still not be self-centered enough to seek the aggrandizement of it. Thank you very much. Universal Triumvirate (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

President of Iran

Are you aware of difference between constitution rules and tabloid claims? --109.60.5.116 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet of banned user:HistorNE according to IP range, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HistorNE. CheersGreyShark (dibra) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Discospinster, Thanks for the help on this.GreyShark (dibra) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. ... discospinster talk 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why I wrote the article for The Remaining, Part One

The reason I wrote the article for The Remaining, Part One was to go ahead and put in on Wikipedia before it becomes popular. That way, when people search the title on Wikipedia (or the internet), Wikipedia will have the article. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to have these kind of articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idts (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite the opposite. Subjects generally aren't covered in Wikipedia unless they are already notable. The criteria for notability can be found here: Wikipedia:Notability. ... discospinster talk 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

IDTS: Okay, so how can I make the picture for the book cover reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idts (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not the picture, it's the book. You would need to find independent sources discussing the book. Like a newspaper article or a book review at a well-known web site. Not just links showing the book exists. We already know that. ... discospinster talk 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Example? Idts (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/king-r-cujo.html ... discospinster talk 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to find one then. And where should I put the reference when I find it?Idts (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In the article. See WP:REF. ... discospinster talk 00:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One more question: why? Idts (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC) And if you KNOW the book exists, why do you need a link to some book reviewer or newspaper article?Idts (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I've replied on your talk page since I've closed this early, but it really just boils down to "existence does not mean notability". In the past we did keep articles because something existed, but because it's so easy to publish nowadays we began to require that we be more selective in what we have on Wikipedia. As such, the standards for notability became more and more strict. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Andrewbf

Can you please block him for expiry set of indefinite? He is so annoying and he always did changed the genre without citation and source, and personal attack. 183.171.176.255 (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Elockid has blocked the user temporarily. ... discospinster talk 03:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hey there, I just wanted to know how you revert edits to make them say "(Reverted edits by *Person A* (talk) to last revision by *Person B*)." Do you type that manually or is there a specific method? Thanks. FaceOffTournament (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I mostly use Huggle, which is a semi-automated method for reverting vandalism. It adds the edit summary when you make a revert. It can be found at WP:HUG. There's also Twinkle, which does the same thing: WP:TW. ... discospinster talk 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! FaceOffTournament (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reseda High School

Hello, I noticed that you removed capitalization of "alumni" in a section heading. ([3]) Shouldn't this be capitalized? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, they should be sentence case (i.e. only the first letter and proper nouns capitalized) (WP:MOSHEAD). ... discospinster talk 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Nevermind. Piguy101 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Five Maxims of Karate

Thank you so much for the deletion!

Have a good evening :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTirbaoqlis (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. ... discospinster talk 23:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ray Comfort Edit

Hi Discospinster,

Thank you for at least explaining why you reverted my changes, I'm sure if you read the paragraph you would find none of it to be untrue. As I recently watched this movie I wanted to include the latest work on the article (like so many do).

If it was a piece of opinion then I would understand it being removed, however it is by definition propaganda, and an accurate representation about the film. If you have a difference in opinion then why not collaborate and add to the entry, rather than simply removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.209.56 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that confirms it's propaganda, then feel free to add it back with the citation. As it is, calling it "by definition propaganda", and Comfort's approach "self-styled pseudo-psychology" is expressing an opinion, and doesn't belong in the article. ... discospinster talk 01:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Flatiron District Boundaries

Hello,

I tried to correct the Flatiron District boundaries on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatiron_District but the changes were reversed. The boundaries are 16th to 23rd and 6th Ave to Park South. Amongst other thing see reference 4 in the Wikipedia article: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/realestate/if-you-re-thinking-of-living-in-the-flatiron-district.html , and the NYC Department of City Planning showing Ladies Mile as part of the Flatiron District (mentioned in the Wikipedia article too) and the Ladies Mile boundaries being 16th to 22nd and 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ladiesmile/ladiesmile1.shtml

And from a recent NYT's article (first paragraph of What You'll Find section: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/realestate/flatiron-district-living-in-profile-always-high-keeps-current-too.html?pagewanted=all

"The boundaries of the Flatiron can be a subject of disagreement, but the district generally runs from the Avenue of the Americas to Park Avenue South between 14th and 23rd Streets, excluding the blocks adjacent to Union Square."

Thanks, Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.164.49 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. If that's the case, then you need to put the citations in the article along with the edits, or at least include an edit summary indicating why you're making the edits. Otherwise it just looks like you're changing numbers for no apparent reason, which can be perceived as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 12:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Discospinster/Archive35&oldid=1140233715"