User talk:STSC/Archive 3

You are world famous!
A quote from Foreign Policy magazine from China and Japan's Wikipedia War: ''Some editors supported changing the article's name to "Pinnacle Islands" -- the English-language name for the island chain used in the 19th century -- to mitigate concerns about article bias. This attempt at a compromise was quickly shot down, even as the talk page rhetoric heated up. "These pro-Japanese editors just a bunch of bully boys and hooligans!" an editor named STSC vented.'' (The wikilink to the talk page discussion where you made the comment was included in the article at the exact same way here, as a hyperlink.) This is amazing! :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
 * I'm closing that thread. STSC, be aware that "same old bully boys and hooligans are still active there" can be perceived as a personal attack. No more, please. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey STSC; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Commentates?
Apologies, but I was unable to see how a book can cover issues as they occur, as it is already completed. My understanding is that commentates would refer to a live broadcast or a website that can continually change to keep abreast of updates. Anyway, that was my rationale.--Soulparadox (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal comments are not appropriate
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Also note that falungong-related articles are under arbitration committee discretionary sanctions. You can contact me if you have any questions.— Zujine |talk 13:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Digressing
Here's a page that might help you better understand the chinese regime's way of functioning http://AnOpenLetterToTheCCP.com/. Just sharing as I have found it interesting. Also checkout the linked page, http://2theregime.com, along with the video embedded in it. And the footnotes there. 49.249.33.138 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Re. Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design
Thanks STSC, I will consider working on it again. Thanks for defending the article and making improvements! Citobun (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Transport Newsletter September 2013
Delivered by  Rcsprinter  (barney)  @ 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Famous Players Edits
Hi STSC, In response to your revert, I have the following comments. Firstly, the item in question had been tagged for over a month to have clear inclusion criteria added to it with no editor making any input whatsoever. The only reason I reverted it today is that I did not realise you had undone it. Secondly, the fact that no one has edited it for a while does not mean it should stay, thirdly, there is no need to seek consensus for a list that has no inclusion criteria at all. With nothing to guage why these players are notable, it is simply an OR list, essentially someone's opinion. Please add in clear inclusion criteria if you qwish to add back, or if you disagree, take it to WT:FOOTY to get it discussed by a wider audience. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to your "warning" on my talk page please visit the wikiporject football talk page above where you will see there is a discussion going on where a number of editors are of the opinion that lists of former players that do not have any clear inclusion criteria and are not linked to a reliable source are very much OR. I would appreciate it very much if in future you could get involved in discussions as requested rather than posting aggressive and unsigned warnings on my talk page. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the specific discussion is here. I think you are also making a mistake in assuming what I am doing. I am not removing thel ist because I do not believe they played for the team, I am removing them because, by adding a selective listing of players, you inherently give them additional prominence. Without any reliable source to back up this prominence, such a selective listing is by definition OR as it begs the question, why are these players called out as opposed to others. If a reliable source for the listing cannot be found then the list should be removed and replaced at most with a link to the player category. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi STSC, I have removed the "former players" section again because, as this is not an exhaustive list of former players (which should not be included as per WP:NOT) but a selection of former players that an editor has subjectively chosen, the list is essentially calling out some players for special attention over others, therefore whether the section is entitled "former" or "famous" there is no difference. Rather than just reverting, why not add in some clear inclusion criteria as you have been repeatedly asked to to explain why these players as opposed to others have been highlighted for specific attention? Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note - a (largely) unreferenced list of "random players" is wrong for so, so many reasons - see WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:OR to get you started. Please do not add the list back. Instead, I suggest you use the article talk page. GiantSnowman 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hong Kong independence movement
Hello STSC. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hong Kong independence movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)