User talk:Saebjorn/Archive/14-Jul-2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a ping about the notability here; general rule per WP:MUSIC is that if a single charts, it's notable. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings
Hi Saebjorn! Just thought I'd check in with some of my adoptees - how's it going? Having a good experience with the encyclopedia? Anything I can help you with? Let me know, and happy new year! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
pay attention
When an article has a section at the bottom that says "Source" and then provides a URL, you don't add an "unreferenced/unsourced" tag. DS (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
My page was terminated!
Dear Saebjorn,
How are you? I am writing to you because I created a new page on Early Canadiens. However, it was deleted and transfered to habitant meaning old french canadien farmer. My article dealt with the early Canadiens as they were called, and not the farmers or a later terminology for Canadiens which became French Canadians. The period of time I was dealing with was the 17th and 18th century Canadiens and their explorers and nation builders. The French Canadian article deals with the 19th and 20th century and just a small note on earlier Canadiens. But worst still, it was tranferred to habitants and this does not cover what I am talking about here. I wanted to build on this article, and I did spend time and effort to do this. I had a professor of history at University who wrote a book on Lower Canada. It covers a specific period of time, and he would have been insulted if someone had refused to publish his book because it is part of Canadian history or the history of the Province of Quebec. I remember your warm welcome back last September, and I have contributed a lot of my free time and pictures to make wikipedia more interesting and thorough. I am sadden by what took place, and it does not make me feel like continuing for wikipedia.
I wonder if you could help me. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. Remember, it was the beginning of a page that I thought would be very knowledgeable. Is this not the idea behind wikipedia, to expend knowledge and not to destroy it?
Thank you for your time taken in reading this!
Jacques
--Chnou (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- What Chnou has been trying to do is essentially a content fork, placing information that should be added to French Canadian and/or habitants, if it isn't already there, and placing it in an alternative title that isn't in any way necessary as a distinct article. It should be noted that he's also been making arbitrary decisions that one of the people whose photo is present in the infobox on French Canadian should be treated as a traitor to his people rather than an example of them, and then replaced with somebody else he personally likes better. He hasn't participated in the discussion to build consensus around who should or shouldn't be included; he simply imposes his view and then accuses anybody who disagrees with him of being uncooperative. And he also tends to blank discussion that's posted to his talk page, which is why I'm replying to you here — you'll need to review his talk page history to see the numerous explanations and clarifications that have already been given to him. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is all settled then, as per User talk:Bearcat? Saeb(talkjorn) 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Does appearance on a few TV stations establish notability? I this case I feel not.
a. The article doesn't explain why the topic important/notable. Someone in Alameda likes dressing up in a mask? So what? b. The story does not appear to be of any real importance - the sort of "filler" that appears at the end of the local news section of a TV show. c. Lack of solid references. If you try googling the subject there doesn't appear to be any references "of record" - just the light mentions in TV or press.
I came across this article while trying to help clean up deadend pages. I'm happy to have a go at wikifying articles on all sorts of subjects - take a look at my most recent edits. However, in this case there seemed to be almost no material to work with (OK the fact I don't speak Portugese doesn't help). A quick look at the Portugese Wikipedia shows (I think!) an almost word for word version of the same article - tagged as lacking references.
My own preference is to delete weak articles of this sort, when they are going nowhere (no champion) and when uninvolved editors (like myself) can't find materials to work on them with. I feel that if they are deleted but truly notable they will come back. If they are not notable, and are just left, then they just sit there lowering the overall quality of Wikipedia.
However, I certainly don't feel strongly enough to get into a Wiki fight on this! Could the two of us, at least, reach a consensus on restoring the prod tag or trying to do at least some basic edits to get the article into better shape?
Thanks
Cje (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restoring the PROD tag is no problem to me. It's just a bit of a shame to see an article go like this. But I agree that there are so few references, and how difficult it would be to get anywhere with it.
- I was under the impression that the assertion of notability was enough to keep an article compliant with the notability guideline--enough that it would avoid deletion on such grounds. I'm not sure of this, but I'm definitely willing to re-PROD on the lack of references.
- tl;dr: Go ahead with the PROD, I'm not very involved with it, and don't think it's a worthwhile article at the moment.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Ravens & Chimes
Hello Saebjorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ravens & Chimes has been removed. It was removed by Baileykwilliams with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Baileykwilliams before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)