User talk:Nonsenseferret/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigel Walker (criminologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameron Highlanders. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bellgrove Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallowgate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ScotlandsPeople
Hi, Have you been able to use ScotlandsPeople yet? Several of us are still seeing "credit: none". LeadSongDog come howl!  03:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * no credits here, I guess it requires an employee somewhere to upload the entire list when they can be bothered to do so. --nonsense ferret  18:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for the feedback.LeadSongDog come howl!  04:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Waterboys' Paul Brown
Hello! I see you may have an interest for The Waterboys' Paul Brown article. The artist requested help on the IRC channel recently to develop this article, and made a copy and paste copyvio draft on the talk page (which has already been taken care of and deleted). As a result of this, I talk to them a bit and got them to post a list of possible sources on the talk page instead. I've copied the WikiProject banners from the band's talk page, and this page will need to have each WikiProject assess their own importance and ratings on the topic. Thank you for your assistance. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination)
Hi Nonsenseferret. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

16:38:42, 10 February 2015 review of submission by Dheft777
Added more links to establish notability for the Berfrois entry.

Dheft777 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

would you help a newbie?
perhaps I am in less need of help than I worry! but I absolutely love your user page and it is clear you know your way around here. I think the topics I am trying to establish pages on will interest you, they currently revolve around an author/assistant professor, perhaps more importantly also hods a role as an activist. I am desperately trying to edit everything at once to bear back the delete requests (do people farm points by requesting deletes? the reasons are almost like they didn't bother to read the article or do any thinking after) in any case, I hope you are healthy and feeling well, and I would appreciate any time you care to share as I flounder my way through this intense learning period. Love.Nolanpowers (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments, I'm happy to offer some pointers - looking at the pages you've been working on which have been nominated for deletion. The main criteria which is required to qualify for a page is that a person or book has been written about in independent reliable sources (which may be online or offline). As a rule of thumb for a book, I would normally expect to see at least 4 or 5 detailed reviews in either national newspapers or well-respected academic journals - the article about the book would summarise the details of these. For an academic, it is normally expected that they should be holders of a named chair or distinguished professorship and it is impossibly rare for someone of normal professor or assistant professorship to qualify for this reason in itself. Similarly for an activist, a handful of national newspaper articles or similar online content would be required. Unfortunately online blog content which does not have editorial oversight or a widespread reputation for factual accuracy would not contribute to demonstrate the subject is notable (within the strict technical meaning of that word as defined by the wikipedia guidelines). If you are able to research further and demonstrate there is such coverage for these articles, then you could make a good case for them being kept. If there is not yet such coverage, then it may be too soon, and you can revisit at a later date when such coverage appears. On the whole I would caution you that wikipedia is a very poor medium for raising awareness of things that are not already very well known, since such things rarely meet the guidelines. Do not feel downhearted by this, wikipedia is at the end of the day of very little importance compared with the things that really matter in life. --nonsense ferret  20:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I am talking to Galadriel at the end of that... Thank you, your message has shown me what I need most immediately what would have otherwise likely taken much longer to gather and understand. In the meantime, where can I read more, for example when you say "a widespread reputation for factual accuracy" would be useful... where can I read more on that idea? Because I believe this would fit, there is a widely known issue here but this is just some details (there are a lot of pages that I could created(most are living biographies), and maybe like you say, I am just choosing the wrong medium through which to display this information. Yet in the format I have this information (and I am not willing to approach myself any closer to the issue, because as you say, "Wikipedia is at the end of the day of very little importance compared with the things that really matter in life", and I agree wholeheartedly(though it is also fascinating^^ and convenient). And where does this idea of 'a widespread reputation for factual accuracy' go keeping hold in regard to personal life, personal communication, and personal (social) media presence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the first place you should read is the guidance on what counts as a "reliable source" - see Identifying_reliable_sources. That shows some guidance on what things may be appropriate to rely on as verification of facts presented in articles on wikipedia. --nonsense ferret  22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

second edit
my goal is not so much to raise awareness as to provide key pieces of information that an everyday interest might need; thinking of people like myself who are just readers, or more specific groups and individuals for example the people of the Republic of Togo, or the privileged young students who simply want the encyclopedic version of this quite notable figure. The things he has lived through are undeniably interesting, and all of his work manifests details worthy of noting in encyclopedic fashion... am I in the wrong place here? Will I not meet criteria despite my plea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Scouring Wiki to justify my being here( I have been lurking since Wiki was born, like many, I grew up with it) and looking at Paulo Freire and noting that in the opening paragraph, the introduction if you will, this blog is cited and while it is part of a larger organization(obviously), none of these things are unique to this sort of publication, in fact the entire article mostly examines the primary text, and then examines topics and people that have nothing to do with Freire, but simply note where Freire was in relation to these other people and topics, in other words it entirely opinion when (if) the author presents any new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding these points, I fear yes, you may be in the wrong place since there does not seem to be the depth of coverage in reliable sources about the subjects you wish to write about. You cite the example of Paulo Freire, and you can see in that article that the life of the subject has been written about in many significant academic journals as the subject of independent academic study. If any subject has this demonstrable level of widespread interest in the academic community or more generally, then it would be a subject suitable for wikipedia. However, without such high level of demonstrable widespread interest (according to the rules regarding notability, see for example WP:BIO), then even the most worthy and worthwhile subjects will not be suitable for inclusion. This implies no judgement about how interesting the subject is, or how worthwhile, only that since it has not been widely covered in independent secondary sources, there is no verifiable information which can be summarised in this tertiary encyclopedia. --nonsense ferret  22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again, for your patience... I understand the need to provide a true substantial base of secondary sources, and that primary sources, or semi-independent secondary source ( or both) are not enough to substantiate a notable tertiary article such as in Wiki... I imagine that conferences and colloquiums held in academic settings (one took place at the University of Lomé in Togo for the most recent publication 'La bêtise humaine'...(there was a fairly small attendance so I won't be surprised to hear no)), a few hundred is not significant or notable I am supposing, and it is quite understandable in the regard of encyclopedic style.

Before I go to rest and hopefully wake with much more wholesome ideas on where to turn to with this apparent doomed mission, I will imagine that as the person trying to create this, I would be daft to imagine myself being the independent secondary source reviewing this work, no? The most mind boggling part about all of this for me is that the part of all of this that is undoubtedly widespread knowledge is just who this man is, and that while there is nothing for anyone to do about it per se, awareness of the ideas that are inevitably confronted in such a biography are widely known and explored entirely independently of Kodjo Adabra... There is literally nothing notable about this guy other than what he has lived through... I am not sure but I will try to look into public records for political refugee's ... I can also cite the NYS salary he earns, that is an independent source right... it states that his time is worth X amount of dollars per year and we as taxpayers have a right to know that, thus it was noted for us? am I reasoning at all ? probably not...

I guess I will have to consider digging into his former identity and seeing if the still-in-power dictatorial regime kept records on who they tortured/emprisoned/ why etc. that would be 3rd party, right? they find it notable therefore that helps my cause? I'm not sure how my chances are on that one but I will look into it...

both of those are on the assumption that "independent" does not exclude public entities... they are independent of us as persons so I don't see why it would... but I am new here... Thank you for being so welcoming, I apologize for what must certainly be finishing as a regretful engagement for you xD. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * sources must be published so people turning up to a colloquium in itself does not help, but if they wrote lots of articles on the subject in well known academic journals then that would help to establish it was notable. Writing in wikipedia is not a reliable source, but if you wrote in say a national newspaper with editorial oversight then that might be. Salary details are quite irrelevant unless someone has commented on them in a reliable independent source. Public records are primary sources, and carry no evidence about the significance or notability of a subject. --nonsense ferret  11:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ok, thank you for modeling good focus for me on the issue, I have taken a copy of our discussion to refer to if I need help recalling your words ( or my own), with hope I'll find reliable sources to establish notability soon. You have been very kind Nolanpowers (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Jim Murphy
Hi,

Could you help me understand please why The National is not an appropriate source? It is under wikipedia guidelines to use a wide range of sources. Hence why The National in included in there with other sources such as the Herald, The Guardian, Telepgraph and BBC. The National is a legitimate part of the mainstream press in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.7.138 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mhairi Black
Damn, you was like too quick to revert my bit of fun. Thought it might have lasted a day or so. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.243.184 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hiya. Well the school in Scarborough used be known as St Augustine's RC, and so I disambiguated the school in Lancashire in anticipation. However I then found that the school in Scarborough is now known as St Augustine's Catholic School. As it does not have 'High' in its name anymore, and the new school title was free and not even redirecting I thought I could go with that name. Bleaney (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hunt
I made comments on the talk page before undoing your deletion. It is quite inappropriate for you to assert that I did otherwise when the evidence is immediately before your comment. Tibetologist (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Making comments is insufficient, you need to build a consensus by making an argument on the talkpage and getting the majority of interested editors to agree with the change BEFORE you make it. Anything else is edit warring, and I'm sure you don't want to go down that road. -- ℕ  ℱ  10:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Come now, I have been on Wikipedia since 2005. It has never been the practice to have a vote on every single proposed edit and it is clearly also not what has happened (on the basis of the talk page) in the history of this article. You should presume that my edits are intended in good faith. I am happy to see that you allowed the removal of a lot of the POV 'only's and 'just'. I hope you will now agree to the mention of the University Council's decision, since I have pointed out that the article referred to about his non-reinstatement came before the University Council met. You also seem to not mind that I added (effectively at your invitation) mention of Paul Nurse's comment. It seems that it is only the comment to the Today Programme that you really don't want mentioned. If so, it is incumbent upon you to say why you think it is not appropriate. Tibetologist (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As an experienced editor, you should be aware that it is for the person adding material to establish that there is a consensus for the change. If you boldly make a change which is not reverted then that is fine, you can assume that consensus is for inclusion of the material added. If however your boldy made change is reverted, then you can't simply start to engage in a battle of re-reversions. Instead you must establish in a discussion at the talkpage, engaging other editors, that there is a consensus for the change. Making a comment at the talkpage and immediately trying to re-revert does not show at all that there is a consensus. -- ℕ  ℱ  11:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Eye Centre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Byrne and Edwin Morgan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Answer to my question
Thank you very much for your prompt answer and welcome.

I will definitely go "boldly" and fix the two articles I've run across. It was just a preliminary concern, as I've seen other somewhat not-so-nice discussions on other WMF sister sites and didn't want to get into an edit war with anyone. But I guess this is how I learn just how far I can go here.

Thanks again.

Humbug26 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Micro Bit
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from book to author
Hallo, I see that you created the redirect from Spirals in Time: The Secret Life and Curious Afterlife of Seashells to its author Helen Scales, but you didn't mention the book on her page. Any redirect should land on a page where it's clear why the reader has got there. I've added the book now. (I also made another redirect, from the shorter title Spirals in Time.) Another time, please add the book title to the author's article at the same time as making a redirect there. Thanks. Pam D  13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though in fact if the redirect is going to the author, in that list it would probably be more helpful not to link the book title, as having two links on one line gives the impression that there is information in two sources. It would also look better if all the book titles in the list were in italics, as that's the convention throughout the encyclopedia. Pam  D  13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All good points thanks. Although created as redirects, I will get round to starting articles for those quite soon. There is generally a sufficiency of independent coverage for books on the list. -- ℕ  ℱ  13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What is that image on your homepage?
This is a general inquiry if you like. What is that image that you have on your home userpage? It has sparked my interest   Olowe2011  Talk 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See the file details page for full description. commons:File:Ferret_Mk1_'Delilah'_army_registration_'35_BE_22'_owned_by_Grahame_Robinson_pic6.JPG -- ℕ  ℱ  22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * * Are you interested in these sorts of vehicles or something? I do not mean to pry just kindly curious Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 22:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry there isn't a better story. No, it's a ferret. Simple as that. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * * Its a nice vehicle. I prefer birds myself. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 22:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn
Hi Nonsenseferret - you say nothing has changed, but it has. I took the opportunity to double check that I was not mistaken about the incontrovertibility of the www.gov.uk announcement of Corbyn's appointment to the Privy Council (per Talk:Jeremy Corbyn). All you have done is revert my edit and unilaterally decreed that "nothing has changed". Please advise your rationale further - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) qte...I've just returned from a City lawyers' function where among other topics of conversation Jeremy Corbyn cropped up. You may be intrigued to know that unanimous consensus was quickly formed without need of explanation as to how The Leader of HM Opposition (thereby prospective PM) does not know whether or not he is a Privy Counsellor (given that his appointment has been formally announced). I mention this because my dealings with Wikipedians on this matter for some unknown reason seem to get ever more tortuous, so it was pleasing to have such unstinting clarity from legal professionals, who all agree that Corbyn is now a. The Wiki consensus procedure seems to invite minority groups to cast their competing interests into the public domain and demand rights and recognition. But because your right is my duty, and vice versa, this inflation in minority rights has been matched by an inflation in the burden of duty imposed on others eg. in this case, presenting the correct form: the Govt Website has formally announced his appointment as Privy Counsellor, so when primed with such authoritative information why constantly revert the article back to a lessened state?unqte
 * Hola de nuevo Nonsenseferret - you'll be pleased to know that I defer to your better judgement regarding the Rt Hon/PC issue - too much time is being wasted without result. Thanks for liaising though - appreciated. Re "Styles", which section I see has also been culled, Corbyn was a Cllr. but I guess let's deal with this when all the tomfoolery has abated. Having started out quite pro-Corbyn it would appear that if this is how his tenure is going to carry on not much will ever be achieved - hasta pronto! M Mabelina (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I understand how frustrating editing can be. Many times over the years I have felt like the lone voice of sanity against a sea of opposition. Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative environment though, and sometimes you end up having to compromise something you are certain is right. Perhaps Corbyn is beginning to realise politics is a similar game -- ℕ  ℱ  02:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you clearly empaphise. Just another small point for accuracy Murphy is Corbyn's economic advisor (without the "s" at the end of economic - otherwise he begins to sound like an economics teacher!). Let me know when it is safe again to impart some sanity on the article - cheers! M Mabelina (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Scot writers
Why did you delete my edit? Sydney Donald is a Scottish writer and author? Search on Google Sydney G Donald and you can see that he has written books! Leedslad1234 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a necessary but insufficient condition in terms of the requirements of listing on that page. In fact you'd need to demonstrate that this is a "notable" author within the specific terms of WP:GNG, and WP:BIO, and the easiest way to do that would be to draft a new biographical article about this subject, supported by a good handful of reliable sources which discuss the writer in detail. Then there would be a good argument for including the name on that list. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

BLPSOURCES and NPA
It's fine with me if you don't understand WP:BLPSOURCES, although you really ought to at least read it if you're going to be editing here. But this edit combines a crass misreading of an important policy with a crass personal attack against me. I would never block for such a mistake, but others might. I just thought you ought to know. --John (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake me for some inexperienced user who can be pushed around with these sorts of empty threats. My interpretation of the policies is correct and supported by practice at the RS noticeboard. -- ℕ  ℱ  19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, so it is wilful stupidity rather than innocent ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that for me. That may save me a few steps if this has to be taken further. --John (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. -- ℕ  ℱ  19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of books featured on Book of the Week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Shapiro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for updating First Interracial Kiss on Television. I just read about You in Your Small Corner 20 minutes ago and immediately went to update this article but was pleasantly surprised to see it had already been done! LavaBaron (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Museum of Southwestern Biology concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Museum of Southwestern Biology, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Murray (British politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McDonnell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sean Crighton
Hello. I agree with you regarding the eventual outcome for this article and, if you'd tagged it on the basis of notability, I would have left it alone. However, you tagged it on the basis of no references. I'm sure this will seem pedantic but PROD is too often used incorrectly and articles are being lost on the basis of one editor's opinion and the tag slipping by the attention of others during the short seven day window. Regards. Dalliance (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Tim Hunt
Hi. I'm looking for some help re the Tim Hunt page. It seems you don't have emails enabled. Is this the best place to ask?

Danwadd (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the absolute best advice I can give you Dan is to steer well clear of directly editing the Tim Hunt article. I'm fully aware of the changes you would like to make on it, but I would say your plan is based on a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles should briefly summarise independent published reliable sources such as national broadsheet newspapers and peer reviewed academic journals. original research such as looking at primary unpublished sources such as blogs and twitter and statements from involved individuals is outside the scope of wikipedia and specifically excluded. Trying to use wikipedia to uncover the truth or promote one perspective isn't why it exists. Individuals who have a conflict of interest should be very wary of attempting to edit wikipedia, and there are specific provisions in wikipedias terms of use concerning this. That said, if you have specific recommendations to change the article then the article talk page is the best place to make that proposal and have it discussed by other less involved editors (click Talk at the top of the Tim hunt article to access that). It is worth reiterating that content will only be considered that adopts a neutral point of view and is based on independent reliable secondary sources. I hope this makes sense, happy to answer any questions you might have.-- ℕ  ℱ  17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks and I understand that. Believe me, the very last thing I want or need is to become involved. Neither do I have a 'plan,' nor am I trying to promote one perspective. But there is a lack of balance and a number of errors in there, which I'll bring up on the talk page, but even that is likely to attract some, er, attention. I take your point about 'independent reliable sources' but in this case there was a failure of some of those cited publications to produce reliable information. Is that to be included, even when it can be proven to be wrong, simply because it appeared in a national newspaper? Also, if it's the case that blogs from 'involved individuals' etc should not be cited, then why is Unfashionista? As you'll see on the talk page, Jimmy Wales has suggested that our article might be worth considering (independently of me, I add). At the moment it's quite a long way off the neutrality Wiki strives for. Surely the aim here is to give people a balanced view of the episode? Currently, it doesn't (and people will say 'You would say that,' but I'm by no means alone in that belief...).Danwadd (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As hard as it may be to believe, it is the case I'm afraid that if all reliable sources are "wrong" then wikipedia will reflect that "wrongness", see WP:NOTTRUTH. Time and time again people come to wikipedia trying to 'prove' the mainstream media has got it all wrong - it tends not to be a productive means of engagement. Jimbo has made no such comment about the article - he clearly is washing his hands of the substantive issues here, and claims not to have read the article you wrote and was recommended to him by a, as yet, unnamed individual. The Tim Hunt article as it stands is pleasing neither to you nor to those on the other side of the argument. That is a good sign in terms of neutrality. For what it's worth I don't think unfashionista should be used as a source and I have raised the question at the reliable sources noticeboard previously. I daresay further discussion on the article talkpage could find consensus to remove it. I would also say discussion on the talkpage is in my view more likely to find consensus for the removal of material rather than addition, as the current detail in that section is already fairly long and that would be in accordance with the principles of WP:NOTNEWS. -- ℕ  ℱ  23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't suggest all 'reliable' sources are wrong at all, just that some are in this case, demonstrably so. As an author and a journalist who finds it invaluable, I fully support any effort to maintain Wiki's accuracy and neutrality. But as an ex national newspaper reporter I'm also aware of how stories are spun, or created, or rushed into print with little sourcing or checking. It happens. So here we have articles cited as 'reliable', where the reporter has spoken to one person, who wasn't there, and yet our piece, where we spoke to 50 or so, many of whom were, is deemed unreliable. I hope you see my point, as you do re unfashionista. If our piece, and unfashionista, are not to be included than surely Cathy Young's polemic on Reason should also be discounted for the same reasons? A summary of our piece was published by Byline and I'd argue that has as much legitimacy as Reason or those of its ilk. I referred to JWs comment not because I think he endorses our piece - he clearly doesn't - but the fact he suggests it for consideration would suggest he believes Medium to be worthy of consideration, and not dismissed out of hand. Otherwise, he would have ignored, no? Or told whoever brought it to his attention that as it was on Medium and self published it wasn't a reliable source. However, I'd argue our piece to this page is of value not in quoting or on citing, but in indicating that some of the more persistent myths, still on the page, should be removed. I agree with you: this shouldn't be about adding - it should be about clarifying and removing a number of misleading, unsourced and/or disputed statements. (Though I don't accept your point about the entry not pleasing either side of the argument - the inclusion of 'transcripts' and 'now seriously' etc would please one side  immensely, when such issues are unproven or in dispute. Btw I'll bring this up on the talk page, but I've seen it said that Connie St Louis agreed TH said 'now seriously' - she 100% disputes that...) Danwadd (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ronnie Apteker concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ronnie Apteker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ronnie Apteker
[[

File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

Hello, Nonsenseferret. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ronnie Apteker".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Puffin  Let's talk! 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Kent (author)
Hello Nonsenseferret

I've just noticed that the bibliography and discography of the Jeff Kent (author) article were deleted on 28 May 2015 because of 'no independent sourcing'. Detailed independent sources for both are given in the main text of the article. Therefore it seems the bibliography and discography (which are commonplace in the articles on writers and musicians and frequently without detailed referencing) should be reinstated. Could you look into this, please?

Thanks. Snoobysoo (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you picked up my above message, Nonsenseferret? Thanks. Snoobysoo (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. I'm afraid I won't get a chance to respond at present, so i'm adding a help template and someone will be along in due course to assist with the article about you. Best regards, -- ℕ  ℱ  00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, what is it you need help with? SwisterTwister   talk  01:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Momentum logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Momentum logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Nonsenseferret! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)