Jump to content

User talk:Iseult/2016/March

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

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

[edit]
One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

[edit]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Honeywell

[edit]

Hey Dschslava, hope you're well. I was wondering if you had the time to make a few quick edits to Honeywell on my behalf since you were so helpful the last time around. I was reviewing the article and realized that there were some incongruencies between what the business unit ACS actually stands for. It's supposed to be "Automation and Control Solutions" but appears as "Automation Controls and Solutions" in the lead and "Automation and Control Systems" in the Business Units subsections. I made the edits on my sandbox, and the diff pointing to the exact places is here. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate it!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick work! Two minor things, if I may bother you again: 1. The Honeywell#Automation_and_Control_Systems subsection header is still incorrect, and 2. I just realized that the Honeywell#Business_Units section should say there are three Strategic Business Groups (there are only the three listed) not four SBGs. Here's another diff. Would you mind taking a look whenever you get a chance? --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eremophila reticulata

[edit]

Hello Dschslava,

Whilst it is no big deal, can you explain why you unreviewed Eremophila reticulata, left a message on my talk page, then reviewed the article (apparently) a few moments later? (I've had autpatrolled rights since 10 March 2015, written about 450 "start class" articles about plants since then and never had a page unreviewed before.) Just curious. Thanks in anticipation... Gderrin (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin:, I did that using the Page Curation Tool (which apparently sends messages to users without me knowing about it). My intention was to review it, but, as it seems, did not notice that it was already reviewed. My bad. Dschslava (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Thank you and all the best. Gderrin (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Dschslava, I noticed that you chided someone recently for vandalism on Religion in Taiwan - he's at it again. I think you have a better idea about how to deal with it than I do. Gderrin (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

[edit]

Reuters TV

[edit]

Hello Dschslava. I'm writing to ask how I can adjust the Reuters TV wiki page to better meet guidelines? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPace818 (talk • contribs)

@EPace818: I'm afraid that there is no way that you can do that: the subject of the article simply isn't notable.
@Dschslava: How is it different from other streaming service pages such as Hulu or Netflix?
@EPace818: first, there's no need to ping me on my own talk page. On to the notability question: Reuters TV has received little to no coverage in the media (sources) unaffiliated with the subject (secondary sources), for one. And just because it is also a streaming service doesn't mean that it gets its own page. If anything, it should be mentioned on the article for Reuters. Dschslava (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dschslava: Apologies, I simply clicked the link from the message you left me and it brought me to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPace818 (talk • contribs)
@EPace818: yes, you did that part right. There's simply no need to use that ping template that you append to the beginning of every message to me on my talk page. And do remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Dschslava (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Colin Tizzard

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
@SocraticOath: taken from the website of the Darwin Awards: "Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way." This, of course, implies that winners indeed eliminate themselves from the gene pool. Dschslava (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the father in the story was killed by his son... not an example of correct Darwin Awards reporting. But they included it anyway! SocraticOath (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SocraticOath: the father eliminated himself in a stupid way by giving his son a knife and challenging his son to stab him, which the son promptly did. Classic Darwin. Dschslava (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dschslava, but his son carried his genes on to the next generation! This is selection for strong traits, not selection against stupid traits. No wonder the government wants to arm itself in New Jersey http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj_legislators_judges_carry_handguns.html. SocraticOath (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SocraticOath: his son may have carried on the line of idiocy, but the father eliminated any further such occurrence by killing himself. Dschslava (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dschslava, I don't think that natural selection is strong enough to avoid our race's doom. It makes me sad. SocraticOath (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SocraticOath: so are you saying *cocks gun* that we need to help it along? Dschslava (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EcoSmart Filter

[edit]

Hello, you marked EcoSmart Filter article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex-Taylor-88) for speedy deletion as it "doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough". My point was to provide some basic information about this product bringing it to a large audience. It might be not so popular yet but it's worth trying and it's reliable. I'm new here, so I'd appreciate to get your thoughts on it. Maybe I should first submit a draft for review? Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-Taylor-88 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex-Taylor-88: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is also not a platform for advertising or highlighting a particular viewpoint. As such, go ahead and submit it for review, but I don't think it'll make it through. Dschslava (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Iseult/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Cambridge.
Message added 19:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iseult/2016/March&oldid=823000247"