User talk:Lankiveil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TUSC token 0b59228b9d55f658b15a2fa9c42d1fdd[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Could you tell me what a TUSC account is? Otr500 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Trent Zimmerman[edit]

Please reconsider the deletion of this bio. Given the comment in this yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald (below) I'm sure many people will be looking for information on this notable political figure.

"The current NSW Liberal Party president, Trent Zimmerman is the front runner to replace Mr Hockey in the seat of North Sydney, with the moderate faction claiming a strong hold on the numbers in local branches.

No date has been set for a byelection yet but insiders were not ruling out a factional battle over the preselection, with predictions the Right faction would resist Mr Zimmerman taking the plum seat.

Mr Zimmerman is a long time mover and shaker in the so called 'wet' faction of the Liberals both in state executive and behind the scenes. He has worked for Mr Hockey as a staffer and is currently a senior policy adviser at the lobby group, Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF). He is openly gay and is the current state president of the party."

14:49, 5 February 2015 Deor (talk | contribs) deleted page Trent Zimmerman (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman)

Castlemate (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article moved to draft[edit]

On 31 December 2014 you closed a deletion discussion as a redirect to Treaty of 1818. I had came on the scene deep into the discussion and saw value in the article, as content not covered or actually related to the specific redirect, except as a by-product after the fact. I expanded the article with references and commented at the discussion. Another editor, the only one to reply after my improvements, made recommendations concerning the name. I contacted you and this resulted in you restoring the article to Draft:Pembina Territory.
A naming problem was evident and I suggested "Pembina Region" but another editor stated it should be "Pembina region". Other articles such as Pembina Valley Region, Black Dirt Region, Calumet Region, and other namings like Columbia Basin capitalize "Region" and there is a source for Pembina Region.[1]
I can move the article to article space and change the name.

Here is what I need to know:
  • I still feel that, with the example articles and source, "Region" should be capitalized.
  • The move states there is a talk page associated and it will be moved but it shows a redirect. Would it be moved to the new article over redirect?
I am not sure how busy you are but I need to move (restore) the article under the appropriate title and have not done one of these yet. Otr500 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I moved the article (after a screw up) so if you could check it I would be most appreciative. Otr500 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Otr500: The article does seem to be at the correct title now, so there's no problem there. However, was there a discussion and consensus about moving this article back into the mainspace under a new name? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
Your statement to me (above): "@Otr500:: I don't feel I can restore the article so soon after the AFD as-is, but I have restored the article to Draft:Pembina Territory, which you can rename as you see fit and add references to try and address the issues that came up during the discussion. ", concerning our discussion above (when I contacted you). I did not know I was suppose to have a discussion before moving it to another title as I have never done this before. That is why I stated that "I can move the article" but was unsure about certain aspects.
  • The talk history still shows a redirect and I was wondering about the naming.

NOTE: I see the revision history is there and that was what I was concerned about more than talk page history. Otr500 (talk)

Since apparently I screwed up what is the solution? If you move the article (as named) back to draft you would need to tell me where this discussion should take place. Also, the lone editor that replied after I made improvements here did not sign his comments, nor did a bot include it.
If you leave it for now, where would I bring up a discussion as that would prevent a possible re-listing.
  • In other words--- what is the best way to go with this as I did not bring the article out of draft (after 8 months), to article space, to circumvent any protocol or policy. I thought the issues were solved, the name is correct, the information is encyclopedic, and more specific than adding relevant content to Treaty of 1818 or another article would justify, and that I could just do this. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Otr500: I've gotten rid of the redirects in the "Wikipedia" space, as they were created by accident and not useful. As for the discussion; after having a bit more of a think about it, I think it's fine. There are .gov sources describing it as a capital-R Region, and the original redirect still remains in place per the AFD discussion. In other words, nice work! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. I am sort of upset with myself that I didn't know, but should have considered, about having a discussion prior to making a move and consensus. At the very least a discussion would have been a "stamp of approval" of sorts. I have actually been preparing for such a discussion in case you moved the article back. I was also thinking that it wouldn't have met with any objections. Thanks for your help. Otr500 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Faulkner[edit]

I am curious as why you closed it when it had only been relisted for one day. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@LibStar: Because in that time a rough consensus to keep the article arose. It is not required to keep the discussion open for any particular length of time after a relist, so long as the discussion has been open for the requisite seven days all up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC).