User talk:Dethlock99
|
Geez, gimme a second. You're faster than a bot. My ref wasn't accepted because you'ld added source to the top.(Feel free to erase this)Thmazing (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I didn't notice how new the article was. The source is still weak. Try looking for some in the universities in Utah, rather than commercial site. It will look less like an WP:ADVERT -- Dethlock99 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have some coming, no worry. Thmazing (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Crammed Discs
[edit]While the article currently has no citations, the Crammed Discs record label is unquestionably notable. I will look into putting in references. - Hawkbreeze (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- If it is that notable, stating why it is notable in the article and referencing it should be easy. If I can get some time, I will look for some sources. I am not well versed in this article's subject, so it will take me a bit longer than someone who knows where to start looking. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- So if you're not well-versed in the subject, that is a reason to hold off on injecting a notability tag in the article. - Hawkbreeze (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the notability had been both asserted and sourced as it should have been, none of this would have been an issue. Let us just find a source and assert the notability. So far, my search for good sources as to the notability of the has not produced a great deal of fruit, but it has produced some. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Possible sources:
[edit]In Vento
[edit]Tagging for speedy deletion
[edit]
Hi Dethlock99. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Ripple-Wrap, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to products. Also, please do not re-tag an article where an administrator (in this case me) has declined speedy deletion before. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- As per your suggestion, I re-read the above policies. You are correct, I will attempt to do better in the future. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| For your altruistic efforts in Wikipedia AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Wikify tag
[edit]Hi, Dethlock99. I note that you just added a Wikify tag to E. C. Glass High School, an article for which I am, so far, mostly responsible. I'd appreciate some advice as to what you'd like done. Wikipedia:Glossary defines Wikify this way: "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia." I guess I could add a few links, although the article is merely a stub, without a lot of scope for more links. Much obliged for any suggestions. Tim Ross (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- WikiProject Wikify is a good place to start. When I find an article that needs some fixing, I tag it with "Wikify" to draw the attention of Project Wikify, with the hope that they will fix it. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you put that template there? It's notable and I've included several references. Dark Prime (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:notability (music) "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The sources are a blog, a fansite, and blabbermouth.net which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source. I think ref improve would be a better tag, as the band seems notable, and something in the intro to explain to those unfamiliar with this type of music as to why it is important. Rather than removing the tag and then posting a comment, it might be better to address the tag and then remove it. I don't mind, but other editors do. By the way, your article is much better than most of the album articles I see on the new page list. I will copy this to the talk page. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: Barnstar
[edit]Thanks ever so much for the barnstar! :) Dark Prime (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Even though I initiated the E. C. Glass High School article, Dethlock99, I do appreciate your taking the effort to add the notability and self-pub tags to it. That is a useful enterprise, and I add quite a few similar ones, myself.
That said, in this case I disagree with you, and have removed the tags. Here's why. You may have noticed that WP:SCHOOLS states that "In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable." E. C. Glass falls in that category. That doesn't mean that such schools are immune from any need for secondary sourcing, just that the sourcing is not too critical. In this instance, though, recognition from Newsweek, Redbook, and USDept Education is more than sufficient, even if it is addressed via a related school (the Virginia School of the Arts reference). The fact that the principal's name, the date of the school's founding, and the source of the school's name all come from a primary source (the school website) does not justify the self-pub tag, as these are simple facts, not prone to any slanting or interpretation.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Tim Ross (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct on notability. For sourcing, however, the article makes several claims whose only source is not independent of the subject. http://www.stgregoryonline.org/list-1982.pdf would be an independent source for the Blue Ribbon award. Better still would be a reference to the original source. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Just reference the Newsweek article. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Dent
[edit]Hi, I tried moving the page. It says:
"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
I started both pages but I don't know how to delete one. Maybe you could help? K69 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Ekumaafaanu
[edit]Hello Dethlock99, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Ekumaafaanu - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I considered it to be unambiguous, but I will trust you judgement and experience. I have listed the article for AfD instead. Thanks for your time! Dethlock99 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Rhein-Neckar Löwen
[edit]Hi. I've just noticed that you've tagged this page for questionable notability and lack of references. I concede the second point and have added an additional reference (to the club's entry in the European Handball Federation website). Beyond that I'm a bit puzzled as to which of the 207,000 Google references to Rhein-Neckar Löwen I should include. To clarify, RNL are one of the top teams in Germany's Handball Bundesliga, and by virtue of the fact that they have reached the semifinal or better in one of the major European club competitions twice in the past three years they have a fair claim to be considered one of the top club sides in Europe. I don't really see the point in including a random selection of match reports by way of verifying notability (the EHF website is fairly comprehensive). I also don't really know why the same tag hasn't been applied to the other seventeen pages in the category of German Handball Clubs. Please could you comment on whether you consider notability is still an issue in the light of the foregoing. BTW I have no special axe to grind where the Löwen are concerned. I follow THW Kiel. Dennett p (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you don't seem to be around at the moment I've taken the liberty of removing the two notifications from this page. If you still feel the need for them to be there then by all means put them back and I'll leave them there pending the decision of some higher authority. I'll also copy my justification above to the article's talk page. Dennett p (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message! All material must be sourced. Preferably by third party sources. All of the material on the other 17 pages should be sourced as well. I patrol new pages and I haven't seen the other pages. If they are unsourced, then you should tag or source them. Find a newspaper that confirms that the club exists and has some claim to fame. The club is probably notable, but notability must be verified, not just asserted. I'm sure they can be found, but try to find them in English. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the response. I'm working my way through the other pages but it may take me a while. Dennett p (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You are incompetent, dethcock!! In fact , you are an arrogant sphincter who ingests semen on a regular basis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.196.155 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Christopher Michael Beer
[edit]Hello! Thank you for your contributions. My article on Christopher Michael Beer was recently tagged as requiring third party sources, containing questionable notability, and potential conflict of interest. This puzzles me as matters were already cleared when the article was first written. I guess I'm just looking for more clarification, as there are no sources in my article that aren't third party. Thanks for your time! Kafkacafe (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reference to CMB's production company was removed by an IP address. CMB is given second billing on the Remodernist Blog's list of members. Using Blogs and podcasts is a bit dicey anyway.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FAUX is why I tagged it for COI. One of the other IPs editing the article is in the twin cities. It doesn't look good.
- As to Notability, his works don't seem to have any significant coverage outside of his locale. The only award I saw was a student film award. Has he been covered in one of the major newspapers in Minnesota? Is there some mention of his movement in some major source? I looked and couldn't find anything very reliable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't know anything about the remodernists or 'his movement' so I'm assuming that came from a different source. My understanding of it would be to delete the blog reference or the mention of the remodernists stemming from that. His first feature had listings in the Star Tribune and the City pages, and his work is used in college courses in NYU and Boston. Other admins have deemed it a relevant article. Let me know what you need from me. Thank you! Kafkacafe (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A link to the Article in the Star Tribune or to the classes that use his work would be nice. wp:Notability must be proven, not just claimed.
Hi! Hard to find things when archives only go so far back, but here's a syllabus: http://www.morris.umn.edu/academic/philosophy/Lemke/Exist2008syllabus.pdf. It's not print, but MPR and KFAI would suffice don't you think? They seemed to have sufficed previously.
- That syllabus is not from NYU, nor is it from Boston. It is from the University of Minnesota Morris. It is used as an example in a class about philosophy by a non-notable professor from a university with a student body numbering below 2000. The article's KFAI ref looks like a press release for a forthcoming event as the film still appears to be in production. The MPR ref is a minor story about 2 local film makers who happened, quite by accident, to both make films with existentialist themes. Has he had any national coverage? NPR? Who are these approving admins? And what did they say? Dethlock99 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, it's difficult to pull up older archives. You can check the articles history for higher ranking admins. National coverage? I have no idea, but two full interviews by two notable radio stations, again, has sufficed previously. Thank you.Kafkacafe (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- "A local interest is also considered to be notable for inclusion if it is sourced by a minimum of two (2) separate non-local sources." From WP:LOCALINT Dethlock99 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out...immediately following that: "Lacking two non-local sources does not automatically make the subject not notable". "Sources from local papers and other materials found within the city or town can be used, and may even be exclusively used to establish notability." And..."Most likely, an article on a local interest will be created by someone who lives in the area, has previously lived there, or has spent a significant amount of time there. This is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, provided that those creating these articles are aware of these guidelines". All from WP:LOCALINT. I have adhered to these guidelines. Thank you! Kafkacafe (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the following section.
If the notability of an existing local interest article is questioned
[edit]- Start out by placing the {{local}} tag on the article. Leave it there for a while.
- If no improvement is made to show notability beyond the local area, suggest the article be merged
- If after a while, still no improvement is made, complete the merge"
From WP:LOCALINT
I am questioning the notability this existing local interest article Christopher Michael Beer. I have placed the {{local}} tag on this article and on the one film of his that has not been deleted yet. Thank you! Dethlock99 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Question: could we move the article to the incubator?Kafkacafe (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would recomend putting the article into your user space. You can refine it and search for sources until it is ready for Wikipedia in general. Help:Userspace draft Dethlock99 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Tis done. Now what? Is there any way to shelf the articles intead of deleting them, simply for the fact that everything I have has been deleted thus far...Kafkacafe (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Once you have addressed the issues that got them deleted, mainly notability outside his locale, we can have those who requested and processed the deletion to look at the revised version in your user space. First things first, we need some sources outside his locale. Have his films been in any film festivals in other regions? If you know him, ask him. Dethlock99 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
cookies
[edit]My goodness I've never had e-cookies before. thanks for the welcome, I'll be sure to go to you for help! I see extensive discussion over the Christopher Michael Beer article; I'll be honest, while it is quite nice to see a homebody on here (I'm from MN), it's going to be hard to find sources that aren't local. Cheers!The Zwinky (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like it will be a bit difficult. Even if it gets deleted, once someone finds a source or two, we can put him back into Wikipedia. Cheers! Dethlock99 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
for your help
[edit] |
The Good Friend Award | |
| for going above and beyond the call of duty in aiding a new wikipedian...little cheesy? whateverKafkacafe (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you
[edit]Thank you very much for your help, Dethlock on the page Leora Skolkin-Smith.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bonnawitts (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Sondra Barker
[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sondra Barker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sondra Barker. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tassedethe (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong spout 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
[edit] New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dethlock99! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
[edit]Hi Dethlock99,
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) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Dethlock99. 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)