User talk:Deunanknute/Archive 4

Tower of London
Pls I am New Last Edit by Marshall9876543

You can add it back, but it needs to be properly referenced. see WP:REF for how. Deunanknute (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Icelandic Coast Guard
Regarding your edit of my addition to Icelandic Coast Guard. According to the published information these retired weapons are still stored. Please research the facts. -130.208.181.210 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It just breaks the formatting, you could mention it into, or just after the sentence "The Icelandic Coast Guard possesses 212 firearms, most of which have been retired.[13][14]" Deunanknute (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

advice
You've been doing good reviewing, but there are some problems. The speedy deletion criteria apply narrowly as written: G11 is not appropriate for articles that are a plain factual description of the company--that the intent may be to promote the company is irrelevant, we can only go by the content, especially at speedy. A7 only applies to people, organizations, and the other things listed, not  subjects such as Rendezook-- it does't even qualify for obviously invented by contributor, as I find refs in urban dictionary and elsewhere. Please see WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD for the details. Remember that only a claim to significance is needed, deliberately amuck weaker standard than actual notability. Please read them before making further nominations--incorrect reasons not only makes more work for us admins, but confuses the contributors. And then slow down a little, even after 8 years experience, I've found that I can not do this sort of work for more than a short period without losing proportion. And it is probably a good idea to get some editing experience of your own. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I'll read them now. Deunanknute (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki
DON'T REMOVE MY EDIT! GO WATCH THE VIDEO "Kevin Nash Returns to Nitro in 2000" ON YOUTUBE AND ADD IT AS A SOURCE YOURSELF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.20.24 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hi Deunanknute. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Royalton hicacos, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! -- Sam Sing! 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How does this article not violate WP:G10? A brand new user creates an article about the same subject as the users name with "The hotel advertises itself as 5 star although its facilities and services don't warrant 3 star." Isn't that an attack? Deunanknute (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You gotta admit, that was a little funny. Deunanknute (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Beats me, it's not the usual kind of COI at least, a grumpy employee who got sacked, who knows? Apart from that it was neutral, and I don't consider it an attack page. Anyhow, as there's 125000 Ghits, I was about to cut that sentence and source it. I'll make a stub in a few minutes. -- Sam Sing! 03:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Next-Generation Transit Survey
Please verify that my rewrite of Next-Generation Transit Survey has eliminated the copyvio. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not quite copyvio but close. See WP:PARAPHRASE for details. You probably want to find more sources. Deunanknute (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Will do, but give me a few days. There's a lot going on at work, but I took the time to do a rush edit on this article because I didn't want to see this article deleted by reason of ignorance on the part of the original contributor. Exoplanets are a hobby of mine.
 * Since NGTS is a new facility, I find only one relevant article freely available on Google Scholar, so it's going to require me visiting the university library to find decent authoritative sources. Many of the online popular science news articles closely echo the ESO news releases (which are Creative Commons licensed) or the NGTS website (which is not).
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If
accidental incest and incest between twins deserve their own article, why doesn't sibling incest deserve its own article when it is one of the most common forms of incest? I smell something (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it doesn't, but the article you made was just a copy of existing content. Deunanknute (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I am very close to reverting you. I don't think I need to explain many Wikipedia rules to you, since you are not new to editing Wikipedia. Whether or not we create a Wikipedia article should be based on whether it is needed; see WP:SIZE and its WP:Spinout section in particular. There is no indication that sibling incest currently needs to be its own article. Furthermore, instead of creating an article out of the Sibling incest redirect, you created the Sibling marriage and incest article; that is a poor title and a waste of space. If we must have a Sibling incest article, then it should be titled that. The fact that it's titled Sibling incest means that it can naturally include discussion of sibling marriage without "marriage" being in the title. If that article is to exist, all of the in-depth detail on sibling incest should be moved to the Sibling incest article, with a WP:Summary style approach in other articles pointing to the Sibling incest article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that Deunanknute has reverted you again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: ProxyOS
Hello Deunanknute. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on ProxyOS to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Deunanknute. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

PlayNSwap.com
Hi Deunanknute, I want to understand why you want to delete this article. It is just a history about the site very similar to many other online communities like ToTheGame, Menéame, MemeStreams, GameTZ.com, GotFrag, or Gaming Target. The site has several thousand users, and a huge database of video game information. Independent reviews, newsletter, trading platforms, etc. There are a lot of volunteers and active users that use on the site, and I think one of them may have started the article. Is there something I can change about the article to avoid deletion? Just trying to better understand, I appreciate any advice you can give. Thank you for your time. Jerieth (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I left an explanation on the AfD page. Deunanknute (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you are saying. I will try to find some additional independent sources, however, I do think some of the sources listed such as the whois and alexa links would fall under independent. Thank you for the explanation. Jerieth (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I updated the AfD page with a couple clarifying questions. I was hoping you could answer them when you have a chance. Thank you again. I'm kinda new at this and I really appreciate the quick response. Take care. Jerieth (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Anritsu notability
Billion-dollar company. Over 3,000 employees in 20 countries. Manufactures products known throughout the global electronics industry. Traces its beginnings to 1895. "Not notable", according to Deunanknute. How do you explain that?

I've removed your inappropriate application of the template. — QuicksilverT @ 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I probably put it there because there are no outside references to establish notability. Deunanknute (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion template removed
Hello, and thank you for your adding of CSD:G1 on the recent article Christin Service. However, isn't a block threat a bit harsh for second-time speedy deletion removal? In my opinion, a second-level warning template would suffice. Thanks, smileguy91talk 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a little, but two removals that quick needs to be addressed with attention, not slowly levelling up over time. A level three probably would have been better Deunanknute (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello Deunanknute. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I misread the time zones and thought it had been several hours. Deunanknute (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ale Resnik article
Thank you for reviewing/patrolling the Ale Resnik article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ale_Resnik The additional citations I added as a result of your comments made it a stronger article. I have a question -- now that you have withdrawn the objections, who is in charge of removing the notation on top of the entry that it is being considered for deletion? Do you do that or is there an admin who reviews entries after an AFD is created? Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278
 * Yeah, an admin should notice it and close it, same as any other AfD. Deunanknute (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Deunanknute Would you mind doing a Speedy_keep https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep so I don't have to keep monitoring this quite so closely over the next few days? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Ale Resnik article
@Deunanknute Would you mind doing a Wikipedia:Speedy_keep https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep so I don't have to keep monitoring this quite so closely over the next few days? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs)

Paid/unpaid reviews
I can't give any universally applicable rubric for telling paid reviews from unpaid, but I can let you know how to tell them apart at Kirkus and PW. At Kirkus, down below the actual review, there's a ... well, it's a lot like the Kirkus version of an Infobox, actually. Paid reviews will have a line there that says "Kirkus Indie"; if you don't see that, Kirkus did the review independently. PW has changed online formatting a couple times, so you'll need to look around, but their paid reviews are labeled "PW Select". Generally, both of their paid review services are for self-published works (although there may be exceptions that I haven't encountered, so always check). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try to keep this in mind. Deunanknute (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)