User talk:Amberrock/Archive 14

The following discussion is an archived talkpage of Amberrock below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Amberrock's live user talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Turning Point in National History 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/A Turning Point in National History 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.

Could you please have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/LIM-49 Nike Zeus for me? I wound up going through the article and adding all the missing references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_participants as an actively involved administrator. Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties is a date request that needs to be reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helmin Wiels, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the recently assassinated Curaçaoan politician Helmin Wiels once said, "Dutch is a dead language, the same as Greek or Latin"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helmin Wiels. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please to defend consensus which was achieved in discussion in this article. Some users are fighting against it with no reason. Andrzej19 (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus changed (and with a lot more than 4 people this time). It's been agreed that the "spoiler" information is out of place in the cast section and should be instead included in the plot where it is expected to be found. The plot section has now been created and includes this information. Naapple (Talk) 08:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amberrock

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mr. Ferguson Is Ill Today has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable TV episode. No reliable sources, only IMDB. Redirect to list reverted by IP as vandalism.

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. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from Thething88 on The Cat's in the Bag(Breaking Bad). Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thething88 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Returnvandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just informed by a bot that I didn't competed step three which is nomination date, but its there, February 2, 2014. What's wrong? Did the bot misread it?--Mishae (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wearethechampions.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I received a message from a bot, which can be seen in my talk page indicating a problem in my DYK nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Hugo Moutinho. But, unfortunately, I am unable to comprehend it out. Will you please help me? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted my article (created on 18th June) for DYK on 21st June for the review. Today I received a message from a bot (DYKHousekeepingBot) that my submission of Template:Did you know nominations/United News of India at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. I think it completes all the criteria. Also there is no suggestion from any of the reviewer, so please can you have a look into the submission and inform me regarding the same. Logical1004 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete error Skynyrdfan71 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yoko Ono (song) 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/Yoko Ono (song) 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.

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia. At the suggestion of another user, I recently nominated a new article I created about Polish resistance fighter Antoni Koper for DYK. Apparently, I failed to complete the nomination process. The bot alerted me to the incomplete nomination the very next day, but I was by then away from my desk for several days. Now, the article no longer qualifies as "new," having been created 29 August. May I nonetheless complete the nomination at this late date since I began it when the article still qualified for nomination? Or should I now withdraw it from nomination? Thank you for any advice you can offer. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been working on a big expansion of the Garage rock article over the last few months, and it just went GA. So, I nominated it for DYK and was wondering if its prospects would look good for DYK? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's no minimum size an article has to be, so I've reverted your redirects. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not completely sure I agree with those reverts. I was working in the spirit of WP:1S. Of course that's no rule, but these articles provided barely any information at all. Certainly nothing which couldn't be displayed in the filmography section of the director. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you put the BLP warning on the talk page of Dominic Poindexter instead of the user! Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the warning on the user page! Wgolf (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake! Yes, of course I meant to put that warning on his talk page instead of on the article talk page. Thanks for cleaning up after my booboo.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my page and that was mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by GossipHawk (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't mean. It was not even meant to be a personal slight, or even a slight in general. I'm sorry if it did come across that way. However: your article violated the criteria for inclusion on the enclyclopedia, so I removed the article. Please read WP:HOAX for relevant rules regarding the speedy deletion of Gossip Hawk.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Re: Nadey Hakim page. This is a picture i have the copyright to. Why do you keep deleting it? Many thanks, Manuque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuque (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amberrock! Manuque visited us in IRC and was asking questions about this. Is there something I'm missing? Should Manuque be following a different process for uploading the image? My apologies if I'm missing something silly, I'm not that familiar dealing with images. Thanks for your time! Chrisw80 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If @Manuque: really does own the copyright to that image then there is of course nothing wrong with him adding it to the article. The very vague discription on the Commons coupled with the fact that this image is available elsewhere on the web (including in news articles) make it appear as if Hakim's photograph was just pulled from a Google Images search. My suggestion is that Manuque spends some effort to provide a more thorough description on the Commons file in order to make his claim to copyright appear much more genuine. As of right now (and you will probably agree with me) the whole ordeal looks quite suspicious. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amberrock, that was precisely the clarification I was looking for. I will bear this in mind in future and counsel people appropriately in this regard should the question arise again. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.