User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/March

Vista Outdoor
If you think that content should be in the body, not the lead, as you wrote in then please feel free move it there in stead of removing it, please. Or at least discuss it on the talk page. I agree that it would be better to have it there. Mduvekot (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it is at all relevant, but it should certainy not be in the lead. It is not down to me to include (correctly) material I am dubious about, it is down to you to make a case for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then don't make the argument and the leade is a summery of the article, so this (if it should be inn the article) needws to be i9n the body fiorst, if you're removing it, say why it needs to be removed. If you're going to argue that it should be in the body, put it in the body. Let me give you some context to it's relevance: In the news this week in Canada (I first heard about out on the CBC radio yesterday) there is significant coverage of a campaign to get Mountain Equipment Co-op to drop brands that are associated with Vista Outdoor. The crux appears to be that Vista Outdoors owns "gun manufacturers, including the one that produces the AR-15, used in the murder of 17 students and teachers recently in Florida". When I tried to find more information about Vista Outdoor on Wikipedia, there was surprisingly little information on that, and it wasn't obvious at all which manufacturer was involved (it seems to be Savage). Oddly, that information was swiftly removed with an edit summary "Removed unrelated topics". I restored it and fixed a link. Then it was removed again, and this time my fix was undone with the edit summary "reverting vandalism". I am not a vandal. I would argue that considering the coverage in the Globe and Mail, the CBC and Global News, the information is highly relevant and ought to be retained, if preferably in the body, not the lead. If you felt it was incumbent upon me to provide a rationale for inclusion, then I believe I have just provided it; I have shown you that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please restore the content you removed. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read it, I say that I am not sure it should even be in the article. You are supposed to make these arguments on the articles talk page, I am not the only one who has removed this material. As such I will not respond to your rationale here, as others may also want to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nozomi Ōsaka
Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nozomi Ōsaka, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''while I don't speak Japanese or Chinese, the fact that both ja- and zh-wiki had articles on the subject for years is sufficient indication of significance. This needs someone who speaks the language to assess properly and most likely discussion .''' Thank you. SoWhy 11:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Don Wyrtzen
Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Don Wyrtzen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Lkskwlkr comment
hey Slatersteven,

I only created the page after being prompted to create it after i followed a link to that page when it did not exist. I thought that if I created it then others could and would contribute to it. To be quite honest I am almost at a point where I feel that the expectation of conformance and the general negative attitude that I have been bombarded with while attempting to contribute to wikipedia is counterproductive and of an underevolved approach towards real data and information. I have also had it stated that what I have to contribute is not worthy of wikipedia, so, I may just let you all do things the hard way and be on my merry way. I bid you good day! Lkskwlkr (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean a page I nominated for deletion was, if it was the problem would have been it need not meet the criteria for inclusion. I am sorry you feel like this is people getting at you, it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact it has been created (and deleted) twice before this should have been an indication there was nothing to write about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I prove you that my data is 100% right??
My data is 100% right but tell me how am I gonna prove it to you, please let me create that Wikipedia page Abhishek Juyal (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered on user's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Challenged

Dear Slatersteven (author of "Colchester Garrison").....

Your article says very little about the garrison in the 1793-1815 wars, and again hardly anything about recent years. From National Archives primary sources research, and a lifelong association with the town's military presence, I have plenty to add about these areas. I did not delete or change any of your input--had I done so this might just have been the "vandalism" you wrongly allege. The T & Cs of Wikipedia make it clear that well-researched additions are legitimate, and to be expected by the original authors of articles. Why not use National Archives, archived local press, even other material on the Web, to check the factual accuracy of my additions before making allegations? Then improve your own article. This is what I do when challenged. '''My own article ("The Army at Colchester") has no overlap in factual content with your own. ''' I do hope you are not attempting to monopolise a subject. As Wikipedia's philosophy says, this is quite contrary to the spirit of their enterprise.

JPFoynes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpfoynes (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not need two articles on the same subject. Your material should be added to the existing article. Also as I did not create the other article I fail to see what your point about monopolizing has to do with anythinfg, and would ask you to AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination
Hi, Slatersteven I noted that you tagged Ekushey Padak in Language and Literature for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Ekushey Padak in Language Movement, but I wanted to let you know that both are different Fields of the Ekushey Padak, I believe that the article shouldn't be deleted. so kindly undo your request.Thanks, ZI Jony (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * problem is that seem to be practically identical articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Untag speedy deletion
The source will be provided when the content that required it was attached, please untag my article. I promised to provide source to anything that will required such sources. For the time being, please untagg it for deletion. Abubakrsadik (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but nothing prevents you from adding sources now (besides which it has been deleted). I would suggest recreating the article as a draft and adding in sources in the first edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Source
When I'm writing/editing a new article about actor or any alike, how should I add sources? Is it at the reference? Abubakrsadik (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You should you the Ref tag after the text that you are using the cite for (see WP:IC).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahsaan Ul Haq Kahlon


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahsaan Ul Haq Kahlon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Saqib (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Something apparently went wrong with this speedy nomination. Of course I would prefer to blame the both of you for this, but when it comes to technical stuff, I always have the sneaking suspicion it was actually me. I'm still getting "Wikipedia:Notifications" for when I used the mainpage as a sandbox in 2016. Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it keeps getting recreated?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hlo Mr
any problem ?tell me JasolK (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) I have on your talk page I believe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gusman Kyrgyzbayev
Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gusman Kyrgyzbayev, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm not a judoka expert but winning medals at four different tournaments organized by the IJF seems like a sufficient claim of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also am no expert, so can only go on what is in the article (which does not say this, so is it even the same person?). Also (as far as I am aware) tournaments have to be major events, not (for example) local ones). So no I do not see any claim of notability being made in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Help : review article
Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Billybon (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * well all material sourced to youtube and IMDB should be removed, also there seems to be copyright violation issues. It needs a total rewrite. As I said stat by parring it down to the material sourced to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tongerlongter
I conflicted with you and made it a draft. I did originally think A1 but I realised what is was about. Not sure what to do. talk to ! dave 18:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what it is about. But I have left a message on the draft talk page for some kind of background information.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I know, I think mostly a merge. I doubt there is much more to it, and it reds a tad POVy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's just a quote which is not particularly encyclopedic, so I thought maybe the creator could finish it in draftspace, but that seems reasonable. talk to ! dave 18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven how is the anv anda page promotional??? Tavo4life (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it read like it was. This great product whose manufacturer have a great sense of humour, ect. It read like a promotional flyer.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello
I don't think that Amino Apps should be set up for deletion. It has at least 5 million active users, which is notable enough for a wiki page right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriNitrobrick (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how many user sit has (assuming this is true) what matters is if RS have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arghya Bose
Hello. I am in the academic circles in Kolkata, and can vouch for the fact that Arghya's presence in the Kolkata literary meet was notable enough. Further, Arghya already has his name in the notable residents section of the Chandannagar page, which has been added by another user. Does this prove his notability enough? Thank you
 * You are not an RS, this is wp:or. I ask you to think very carefully about this and stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia mis not an RS, I could add Spanky MkSpankpants to that page, it does not mean he is real or notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Help : review article
Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix Billybon (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Better. I cannot judge the foreign language sources. In will add a few tags for things that need sourceing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Snow Article
Hi, which areas of the Bill Snow page need additional work? I have provided some references, and included 2 obituaries published in reputable newspapers in External links. Happy to do what's needed to improve it. Ozflashman (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For a start we need in depth third party coverage (so obits may not qualify) to establish notability. Also much of the material is unsourced so cannot be verified.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Raychael Stine
Sorry about that. I accidentally published prematurely. I went to sandbox and finished it. Hope it passes muster now.Apemanape (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arghya Bose
Hello Slatersteven. This is to let you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arghya Bose, a page you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: Receiving critical acclaim on a platform like the Kolkata Literary Meet seems like a sufficient claim of significance Thank youUser:BChakroborty62 —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.", You cannot decline it ion articles you created.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
 * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sapiology
Hi Slatersteven,

I am not so experienced in the English language Wikipedia, so, seeing that you have already been involved with that article, and it seems that you are an experienced user, I'd like to entrust this to you:

The new user has simultaneously published this article in the German and the English Wikipedia. In the German WP, the article has already been put on the deletion talk page.

The reason I am writing here is because I feel there is something wrong with this article. I am mistrustful of its intentions. It is not only that the word itself hardly seems to exist outside of the Urban Dictionary. There is one site only that actually features it prominently, and I am suspicious that establishing the term "sapiology" as an existing word on WP is meant to clear the way for future advertising activities.

So, thanks for just taking my thoughts into consideration... and now do whatever you think is right. :-) --Anna C. (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads about the other article, I think I will AFD it as (I have had trouble sourcing it too).Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Anna C. (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.