User talk:War wizard90/Archives/2015/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:War wizard90. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Malta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malta. Legobot (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Free will
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free will. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Handegg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Handegg. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Norris Hundley
Hello War wizard90, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Norris Hundley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 05:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:Hmm, I think this is a case of don't template the regulars. The page had no content when I tagged it, and content was later added, not a case of me needing to review WP:CSD, but thanks for the notification anyhow. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Warwizard, the page had an infobox, list of sources and some headings when you templated it, sufficient information to see that this was the bio of an American Historian of water rights. A1 is really meant for articles where you can't "identify the subject of the article" - for example when you don't know whether the article was meant to be about a sports person or a politician. ϢereSpielChequers 05:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:Well I don't want to argue semantics, but it was either tag it for no context, or no content (which excludes external links). I made a judgment call on which one to tag it with and excluding the external links as a bad start to an article, and given the info in the infobox, there wasn't enough context to identify the subject of the article without going out of my way to research it myself, which completely bypasses the point of no context, if I have to leave the page to learn more about the subject. Either way, it obviously doesn't matter anymore as the article has been improved. I think my CSD log speaks for itself. Maybe a slight mistag, now and then, but still don't think I should have been templated like a new user, whether you agree that the tag should've been used in this case or not. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- A1 is pretty clear If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate. As I pointed out, I didn't need to click any of the links provided to see what the article was about. As for A3, that wouldn't have applied either as the criteria are very clear this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox. Fortunately in this case your deletion template has not lost us an editor, but all too often new editors stop editing when the article they started is tagged for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: I had a whole response typed up and decided to delete it as I don't want to come across as any more confrontational, I understand and accept your reason for declining the CSD. I shouldn't have been annoyed that you templated me, I know you were probably just trying to clean things up quickly, and leaving a customized message, even if I am a regular contributor, is tedious. I'm usually more careful about tagging for CSD, but do make mistakes from time to time. Have a good day. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- A1 is pretty clear If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate. As I pointed out, I didn't need to click any of the links provided to see what the article was about. As for A3, that wouldn't have applied either as the criteria are very clear this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox. Fortunately in this case your deletion template has not lost us an editor, but all too often new editors stop editing when the article they started is tagged for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:Well I don't want to argue semantics, but it was either tag it for no context, or no content (which excludes external links). I made a judgment call on which one to tag it with and excluding the external links as a bad start to an article, and given the info in the infobox, there wasn't enough context to identify the subject of the article without going out of my way to research it myself, which completely bypasses the point of no context, if I have to leave the page to learn more about the subject. Either way, it obviously doesn't matter anymore as the article has been improved. I think my CSD log speaks for itself. Maybe a slight mistag, now and then, but still don't think I should have been templated like a new user, whether you agree that the tag should've been used in this case or not. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Warwizard, the page had an infobox, list of sources and some headings when you templated it, sufficient information to see that this was the bio of an American Historian of water rights. A1 is really meant for articles where you can't "identify the subject of the article" - for example when you don't know whether the article was meant to be about a sports person or a politician. ϢereSpielChequers 05:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Infobox linking RfC
Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from johncab593
Thanks for the edits on the new page - it is appreciated :D - johncab593 27 May 2015 2:01 pm EST — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)