User talk:NostinAdrek

Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg
FYI I have remove the prod notice as the List in question was separated from SS Gothenburg after a lengthy discussion were consensus was that the information should be presented as a separate list. Gnangarra 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When is "whites only" not racist?
See Talk:Farmington Country Club. I dispute your NPOV tag. If you want to dispute my dispute, I will issue an RfA and we can discuss with others.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erxnmedia,

OK, I agree. My mistake.

Thanks, NostinAdrek (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shin of Hindukush
Please remove the tags on this article now. The content provided is from a noted verifiable source along with the citation. The Shins are a community living in the Hindukush mountains with a long history. Cheers Intothefire (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi NostinAdrek

Reminder Please remove the Tags placed on this page. Cheers Intothefire (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Intothefire,

I've removed the tags, and I've reworded the material. I've not changed anything - I just rewrote what was there. It needed rewording because the English was difficult to understand. Please check what I wrote to make sure it makes sense to you. NostinAdrek (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dale D'Silva
Hi NostinAdrek - I'm the one that placed the original prod on this article, and I agree wholly with your placement of the notability tag. I just wanted to give you the heads up that the article creator and I have been discussing this at User talk:AlbertaVoter, and I've agreed to give her/him twenty-four hours to dig up some third party coverage to assert notability before taking it to AfD. It doesn't look as though you're planning on going the AfD route right now anyway, but, in case you were, I wanted to ask you to give him that 24 hours. I personally doubt that he's going to be able to demonstrate notability for the simple reason that I don't think D'Silva is notable, but I think it's best to give people a chance if they think they'll be able to. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. NostinAdrek (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - thanks for reminding me via the note on User:AlbertaVoter's talk page. I'm trying to keep a lid the various vanity articles in Alberta general election, 2008, but it's something of an uphill battle, as another one popped up today (this being in addition to the eight I've already gotten deleted and the three that are currently at AfD).  And this is with me being extremely generous in my assessment of what constitutes a notable candidate - among the candidates I've let slide on the basis of some very marginal notability are Ed Klop (since he ran for leadership of his party), Fred Horne (on the basis that he's published what appear to possibly be important papers on health administration), Mike Robinson (on the basis that he used to run a mildly notable museum), and Sean Maw (on the basis that he's the first Green candidate to finish second in any riding in Canada).  You could make a case for deletion for any/all of them, but I've decided to only target the really blatant ones.  Anyway, enough of me whining.
 * In response to your question: yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The base notability guideline (WP:N) is that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  This applies to any subject under the sun (although what constitutes "significant coverage" is obviously something of a judgment call): if it's received sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources, even if that coverage was only due to being a political candidate, it's notable.  WP:BIO refines this to say that certain types of people - people holding elected national/provincial/state-wide office, for example - are "inherently notable".  This doesn't mean that they're exempt from the requirement of coverage in reliable third party sources, just that such coverage is presumed to exist (i.e. all MPs are presumed to have received that level of coverage, so they should never be deleted on the basis of lack of notability).  WP:BIO specifically states that unelected candidates aren't inherently notable.  That doesn't mean that they're inherently non-notable, though, just that, unlike MPs and the like, they're not presumed to be notable until the existence of sufficient coverage is demonstrated.  I hope that clarifies things a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For further elaboration, here, here and here are some examples of articles that were kept at AfD basically only on the strength of unsuccessful candidacies for office. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notability tag
Edmund Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield of Butterwick is notable in his own right from being made "1st Baron" by Henry III. Further, besides his being notable because he was a Baron, the notability of Edmund could also include his participation in events that happened in his lifetime which I and other editors will contribute as they are obtained. Indeed, such things as his mortal contribution in assisting the Marquess of Northampton in the attempt to put down Ket's Rebellion as well as his legacy of fathering an illustrious family of nobility. With your permission of course, I would like to remove the nobility tag? Daytrivia (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been expanded and referenced since I added the notability tag, and so I'm happy for it to be removed. Thanks. NostinAdrek (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention & prompt reply. I will proceed to remove the tag. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)