User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2015/September

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Increase protection duration for Afghan Jalebi
Hi, you have recently full-protected article Afghan Jalebi for edit warring for 4 days, I request you to increase protection duration by at least 1 week. There is Afd is going on regarding this topic. One another user made edit protected request on article's talk page, which was opposed by other parties and there is consensus for not making any changes in article till AFd ended with some result. Already three users (including me) have been blocked for editing this article, I don't want that more users should get blocked again. I'm creator and main defender of this article on AFD but sadly I'm not allowed to edit this article. I myself got blocked 2 times for this article. Protection of article will be ended after 2 days and there is possibility that someone will remove some sourced content from the article which I can't restore because I'm not allowed to edit this article. I have to discus it on talk page, there is already discussion is going on afd so there will be 2 parallel discussions. So now there is general thinking that article should not get edited till afd gets some outcome. This is very important to avoid future blocks and saving time of editors. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please can you renew the protection on the article on Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba). The discussion at AFD is ongoing.  You wrote on AFD that you had "fully protected the page in its current state while this AfD continues as it has been subject to numerous reversions, which is not helpful to the discussion."--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's closed now, and nobody edited it during the two days difference. Ged  UK  11:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Judith Q. Longyear
Searching for Judith Q. Longyear I came to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_women_scientists_articles and her link is the only red link there. I see that you deleted her article (but not the empty talk page). Was she notable? I don't know what criteria one uses, but she was more or less well-known, and active in the world of women mathematicians. I think that article should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyth~enwiki (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The notability criteria are quite clearly set, you can see them at WP:N. There's also an additional, optional, set for academics at WP:PROF. I deleted the article as it had been tagged by a user who felt that it did not meet the criteria. Looking at it again, the links that exist certainly confirm that she exists, but there's nothing that is substantial about why she is notable. I can restore it to your workspace if you want to work on it. Ged  UK  12:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * She was a serious mathematician. Not a recipient of the Fields Medal, but she did some useful work - she is known for the classification of small Hadamard matrices, and for a simple proof of the Friendship Theorem. I checked MathSciNet and it lists 30 publications. Maybe not very notable, but somewhat notable. As I said, I am unsure whether that would satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. If it is your opinion that she should not be listed, then I suppose you should remove her from the Index_of_women_scientists_articles. On the other hand, if you restore her page I will shorten it - I found an old copy and it has some messy text. Pyth~enwiki (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry for the delay. I've restored it to User:Pyth~enwiki/Judith Q. Longyear where you can work on it. My opinion on the notability is solely based on the sources that were already there. They didn't go into any depth really. That's what it needs; substantial third party sources that talk about her or her work (preferably her and her work) in depth rather than passing mentions. Ged  UK  11:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I added topics and refs. I think this should suffice, and you can restore the page.Pyth~enwiki (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Ged  UK  11:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAASCU
Thanks for catching that. Bizarre, as the self revert was obviously not intentional, and it happened hours later, hmm. I guess I will watch more carefully in the future. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Ged  UK  12:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)