User talk:Maxwallis

Hello
Hi User:Maxwallis. Thank you for your contributions to Nation.Cymru. I'm afraid I don't agree with your contention I am biased against Neil McEvoy. I have edited pages about politicians of all stripes on Wikipedia and have no like/dislike for the man. I hope you will follow the policy of assuming my WP:GOODFAITH. Regarding sources, it's important to always use independent, third party sources, rather than those connected to the Article. For example, you don't use a politician's official press releases, you use media coverage. It ensures trustworthiness. The rules on this can be found at WP:IS. As such, we can't just cite Nation.Cymru in its own article, we need to show how the website is notable and reputable in Wales as per WP:GNG. Instead references are needed which show Nation has been commented on in major outlets such as the BBC, ITV, and reputable newspapers. I have however linked to the Nation articles so readers here can go and check it out for themselves. I have rewrote the bits about McEvoy's Plaid appeal to be sound more neutral, if you had any concerns about that. Re Hinkley - your edits were generally unreferenced. There wasn't enough evidence for some of your later points, and I feel my text already referred to the issues raised by McEvoy in criticising the nuclear dumping, but if you can point to further information from a citation to a reputable third party source, please do. I'm not critical of you personally - I'm just trying to ensure we have well referenced and impartial articles on topics about Wales. Llemiles (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Shell collapsar
Servus Max, I created an entry for the shell collapsar in the german Wikipedia de:Schalenkollapsar. Maybe you are interested in it, as you mentioned it in Hartland Snyder.

Swen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing closed AfDs
Consider this a last warning. The note at the top of the closed AfD discussion you insist on editing clearly and unambiguously states "No further edits should be made to this page". If I have to revert you again I will report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * my apologies, for not understanding no "edits" includes additions. Maxwallis (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It also includes AfD talk pages, though I'd have thought that should be obvious. This is an utterly pointless place to try to have a discussion about an article that has been deleted. When an AfD is closed, that discussion is over. Participants are very likely to remove closed AfDs from their watchlists. No decision concerning recreation of an article can be made there. Read Deletion_policy if you want the AfD closure reviewed (though I very much doubt it will be reverted), or perhaps start a discussion at Talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe, since the Polonnaruwa rocks are discussed in that article. If you can provide sufficient new sourcing to justify expanding the section, it might be possible to then consider creating a new article on the rocks, but take particular note of Reliable sources requirements - the previous article was deleted largely due to use of poor sources, and to the absence of coverage in appropriate ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RE: your email about Polonnaruwa (meteorite)
You can always recreate the topic if you feel the topic is notable and the deletion discussion did not cover this appropriately. I suggest taking a read of this in order to determine the most appropriate way of going about this. Be prepared to present secondary sources that would make the topic notable according to the notability guidelines. Hope this helps! EvilxFish (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)