User talk:Noyster/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Peter Woit

For some reason, I cannot find many references to Oskar Voits through the search engines. He was the General Director of the Interior in Latvia, replacing Oskar Dankers who wasn't murderous enough to the Nazi's liking. I have this document: http://www.itl.rtu.lv/LVA/pdf/Tezes1999_anglu.pdf but the references to Voits and his family seem very scarce compared to Dankers. 67.71.21.250 (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The source you quote appears to be only conference proceedings and, more importantly, does nothing to link Peter Woit to the Oskar Voits briefly mentioned there. If adequate sourcing was found we would have to stick to the facts - "Voits held the post of ... under the Nazi German occupation" and avoid evaluative terms like "collaborator". Lastly, I would question how relevant this is anyway to a brief article about a present-day American scientist. Please see this policy covering articles about living people: Noyster (talk), 11:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dani Raymond

"Noyster‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪Recent edit to Dani Raymond‬". Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Dani Raymond without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpf..."

Though facts are right, its very hard to authenticate to krishna chaithanya who may not have the understanding of the area of my contribution and my cmy subject cannot be authenticated to krishna since he believe everyone other than him is not authentic source. Thats India and its  biased intellectuals biased based on religion and race, who do not want to see anything other than hindutva based myths.

Thats Why I removed it Thank you

Albert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert1305 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

But Albert you just blanked the whole thing, which makes it more difficult for anyone to see why it was tagged for deletion. You may contest the deletion on the article's talk page, but I see you have already done this twice and without citing any reliable source for Dani Raymond's participation in the film you mention, or for any other aspect of his career to date. Any article on a person has to satisfy this policy on "notability": Noyster (talk), 09:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The story is about a person (Dani raymond) i know personally, yet one krishna velaga wanted authentication, and put it up for speedy deletion. This krishna from telugu region, may not have a sound knowledge of my demography. Yet the tendency of them is to interfere insult anyone other than telugus. Thats the way they are brought up. My history is dictated by them though they do not know a piece of it. i HAVE deleted because no authentication is acceptible by the person, who do not even know the subject well. Its a waste of time. May be it may come in a better way sometimes later THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert1305 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have had this discouraging experience, but what matters is not the personal knowledge, attitudes or motivations of different editors, but adherence to Wikipedia policies of notability and verifiability. Anyway it is not either of us who will decide on final deletion, but an administrator: blanking is not deletion: Noyster (talk), 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Noyster. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Noyster. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Radev Collection copyright problem

I have paraphrased content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.abbothall.org.uk/exhibitions/radev-collection-bloomsbury-beyond, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Payne Biography

 ":"  Thank you, Noyster, for making the changes to the Robert Payne biography.  It was a lovely surprise to see what was done and how quickly it was done.  I'm so glad I don't have to deal with cluebots, whatever they might be.

Thank you again,

Sheila Lalwani Payne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneslp (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Portillo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Portillo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive

Hi Noyster, thanks for archiving Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive! I'm not sure, however, if the move procedure was the best way to do it. We've been using the "cut and paste" method to archive that page for a while now, so because you moved the page, the history of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive/Archive 9 now contains the entire history of the archive, extending all the way back to 2005. This strikes me as a bit inconvenient and potentially confusing for editors wanting to browse the history of the page, so do you think we could undo the move and use the "cut and paste" method instead? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for any inconvenience Mz7, feel free to do it differently. I merely wanted to set up a year's archive for 2016, keeping only 2017 entries in the current archive. Don't mind how this is achieved: Noyster (talk), 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. I've gone ahead and tagged the page for WP:G6. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Hold on Mz7, won't the two existing entries in the current archive get lost in the wash? - Another 3 days and you can handle it yourself!: Noyster (talk), 10:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • This revision still contains those 2 entries at the bottom of the page. An administrator has now performed the move, and I've re-archived the page with the page history intact. I think everything should be in order now. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi noyster and thanks for edite tomi corea frofile. Please tell me how you know tomi??!! 74Far (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi 74Far and welcome to Wikipedia. All I know about the footballer Tomi Correa is that the Wikipedia article about him (not "his profile") was damaged earlier today. This has now been put right: Noyster (talk), 13:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok,thanks About (profile) just im careless 74Far (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of TravelKhana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TravelKhana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TravelKhana (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

glenn hubbard as potential Treasury contender

Hello Noyster, you deleted some material I added to the Cabinet of Donald Trump article, saying the source did not say "that".[1] As you can see from the rest of the rows in that article, the ref is used to prove that Hubbard received media speculation as a potential contender for a specific role. It is true that the ref does not say that Hubbard is an econ prof at Columbia, and some of the other background stuff that I added in -- those factoids are sourced over at the Glenn Hubbard article, and are not controversial. If you can explain what you meant by "that" maybe we can figure out whether Hubbard belongs in that table, but I don't think the source was unclear about what was being discussed. There is no need to get information about potential cabinet-contenders ONLY from great.again.gov or from Trump's speeches, if that was what you were worried about. The article is mostly about which names received WP:RS interest/attention/speculatoion, not just about who won the role in the end. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, what I objected to there was the "reportedly said he would back HRC", sourced to Politico. This was "reportedly squared": a quote attributed to someone without stating where he said it, when or to whom, appearing in what itself appears to be a biased source. Not good enough when we are very cautious over what we say about living people, in this case meaning both Hubbard and the quoted Austan Goolsbee. Reliable sources only, please: Noyster (talk), 13:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. And yes, although I simplified to 'reported' in fact that was arguably an oversimplification, since it was politico-reporting-what-Goolsbee-reportedly-claimed-he-was-told, and indeed Goolsbee is pro-Obama whereas Hubbard is pro-Bush*3, so we should not take that soundbite at face value without attribution *to* Goolsbee. Good catch, thank you. Doing some background digging on Hubbard, what Goolsbee said was kinda-sorta correct, but not nuanced enough: Hubbard was always against Trump, during the repub debates and the primaries (Hubbard backed Jeb Bush and without fail criticized Trump the most heavily of the candidates he deemed worthy to speak about). However, once Jeb Bush suspended, and especially once Rubio also did so, Hubbard apparently believed that Hillary Clinton was a lock for the win in November, and therefore concentrated on trying to promote the Paul Ryan economic agenda, as a counterpart to what he expected would happen in the whitehouse contest. Here are the refs I found: put them onto Talk:Glenn Hubbard (economist) in case somebody can use them, the key one is April 14th. Hubbard did moderate his Trump criticism somewhat by September, saying that although he still had serious disagreements with Trump, that Trump (unlike Clinton) was at least 'directionally' doing something non-terrible in Hubbard's view. In any case, is it okay with you if I put the Hubbard-row back into the Cabinet of Donald Trump article, as a former-potential-contender-for-secTreasury? I'm happy to elide the Austan_Goolsbee-quote-portion on the cabinet-page, since the true situation is more complex than that soundbite would indicate, and readers will thus be better-served by reading the Glenn Hubbard (economist) page for that facet. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked through your refs and most of them are "Hubbard said this" and "Hubbard declined to say that". While they may well be relevant to the article about Hubbard, they can't help with entering him into this list of names who were considered for the treasury post under Trump. Even if he did tilt towards Trump, we certainly can't deduce from this that he would have been considered for the position.

I see the article has a "received media speculation" clause, so under this Hubbard's name could be inserted referencing Politico and CNBC (the last on your talk page list) and any other like reports that you know of as the sources of such speculation, without further embroidery. With regards: Noyster (talk), 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Cabinet of Donald Trump article is mostly about Media speculation on who could potentially be maybe considered once by Trump for his Cabinet but we just call it the other name :-)       In any case, I will re-insert Hubbard per the media speculation links you noted. My reading of the tea leaves (WP:OR not fit for mainspace of course) is that Hubbard never tilted towards Trump, but after Trump became the nominee, mostly concentrated his efforts on attacking Clinton -- because Hubbard expected Clinton to win, and wanted to 'force' her into a series of eventual policy-compromises with Paul Ryan. Fairly weird, but that seems to be what the refs imply, reading between the lines. As it turned out, Hubbard (and a lot of other people) were incorrect in their predictions, and Trump is now the POTUS-elect. It is definitely in the category of a-footnote-to-history, clearly, but I think that it *is* a WP:NOTEWORTHY footnote that Hubbard got some media speculation in the May/June timeframe as a contender for Treasury... which is after Cruz dropped out but before the repub natl convention... and then received no further mention thereafter. Hubbard is basically the estab-repub choice for Treasury (or CEA), and I suspect that once Trump announced his formal econ advisors in August, the names were pretty convincingly anti-establishment, and therefore Hubbard dropped off the media's cabinet-speculation-radar. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I pinged some people, but I don't think you were in the list of username, so I will ping you here instead: there is a discussion about what to do with the (now mostly historical) contender-lists, and also with the (upcoming) bulky Senate-roll-call-confirmation-vote-lists, if you are interested -- please see Talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump near the bottom of the talkpage. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MBillionth Award South Asia

The article MBillionth Award South Asia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Presumptively non-notable award as the article doesn't indicate who awards it or why it is encyclopedic importance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Viral Acharya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Viral Acharya. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Creamware

This is confusing...

I moved Wikipedia:Creamware (which was tagged for G6) to JasperWare's sandbox over redirect (deleting it) because it was a redirect to Wikipedia:Creamware without leaving a redirect, effectively deleting it. The sandbox now redirects to the Creamware page in his userspace. Does that need to be deleted too? Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 Well I had already moved Wikipedia:Creamware to the user subpage Creamware as explained in the linked Help desk thread. Jasper has been informed of this on the Help desk and in case he requires his sandbox for other purposes it may be well to clear it of the redirect: Noyster (talk), 20:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Was Wikipedia:Creamware tagged for G6 because it was in the wrong namespace? The user sandbox now redirects to the user draft (it was previously a redirect to Wikipedia:Creamware but I deleted that). It is now as if he moved the sandbox to the current page. Adam9007 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 I've cleared the sandbox. Please see the Help desk thread for explanation of how the situation came about: Noyster (talk), 20:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm upset that you have apparently deleted my article as this took me several hours of work. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I was, as I mentioned in my query, just trying to find the correct method for expanding a stub into an article by working in the Sandbox first then moving it over in one go to replace the original stub. I was keeping the original authors' work, please note. Where is my work? Have you deleted it all? I hope I am mistaken. JasperWare (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry JasperWare, your Creamware page is not deleted at all but is in your userspace at User:JasperWare/Creamware. This was explained yesterday in answer to your post at the Help Desk, and you should have received a "notification" at that time - look out for the number on a red background at the top of your screen next to your username. I'm copying this message to your own talk page to make doubly sure you see it: Noyster (talk), 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Phew, thanks Noyster! I have a lot to learn. Now, just to make sure I've understood things could you say in layman's terms how I move the article over from my userspace into live Wikipedia? I've incorporated all the material from the stub that was correct (and a lot of it wasn't!) so I'm not just over-writing. Sorry if I'm being slow - I'm a beginner and I'd like things to go a bit more smoothly next time. Many thanks again. JasperWare (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome JasperWare, it takes us all time to find our feet here. To incorporate your text into the existing "mainspace" article Creamware, just open the edit box on both pages - your version, and the existing article - and doing copy-and-paste. Take care to leave the "hatnote" at the very top, and the Categories, near the bottom, but you're more than justified in removing the stub templates below the categories.

It may be worth considering adding a "lead" - an introductory paragraph or two, above the first section heading - which is a feature of most Wikipedia articles bigger than stubs. The page may otherwise get tagged "lead missing"! The first para of the existing article could perhaps serve as a basis for a lead. By all means let me know if you would like to discuss anything further: Noyster (talk), 16:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, JasperWare (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Message from RichardDehn

Thank you for your prompt response and clarification! (RichardDehn (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism of page May 31, dated 19th February 2017

Hello, fellow Wikipedian.

This is a message to you slamming you for suspected vandalism by correcting a typo on the page May 31. Although this may have been a good faith edit, it is still considered vandalism as it wrongly corrected what the link was meant to be, linking to page To be confirmed not page BBC. If you do this again, more messages like this will be coming your way.

Thank you, and don't do it again.

From LobsterLover (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC), Wikipedian and helper in effort to stamp out vandalism.

LobsterLover I'm not sure if the above is intended as a joke or whatever, but you would do well not to carelessly use terms like "vandalism". If the entry really should have read "TBC" just change it back, with an explanation in the edit summary: Noyster (talk), 10:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to my user space pages?

What was the point of your recent edits to my user space pages, such as this one? You've successfully clogged up my watchlist for apparently no good reason. Riceissa (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Riceissa. User space is no-indexed by default but I realise some contributors have legitimate reasons to override this. I've been going through removing indexing from user pages where it is plainly invalid, mainly nonsense pages or promotional matter that gets on to search engines bypassing vetting in mainspace. I started on your subpages, soon realised my mistake and reverted what I had done: Noyster (talk), 20:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why an article that was deleted and then userfied should be indexed. Riceissa you've had this article userfied for the better part of a year, and it doesn't look like you've done much to make it eligible for mainspace. INDEXing the user page seems to be to be an endrun around the AFD process. Could you explain your rationale for INDEXing all your drafts? –xeno^talk 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• As it happens I had just opened the question for discussion here: when should indexing be allowed in user space?: Noyster (talk), 22:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)