User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

• News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

• Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

• In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

• Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

• Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

• Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Useless Sections in the article for Dino Time

In the article for the film Dino Time I believe that the "Crew" section should be eliminated. No other article about a movie in Wikipedia has a section called "Crew," and none features one ugly run-on sentence. Also, I believe we should do away with the "Storyline" section altogether because: 1) it's simply a short restatement of the plot, which makes its existence purely redundant; and 2) it sounds more like an advertisement than an informative piece. Therefore, I have reason to believe neither section should be kept.

Please let me know if you agree at your earliest convenience.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.20.30 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yo

Need some help buddy! 82.132.231.131 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

With? Compassionate727 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't message someone because their page is protected and I don't have an account :( 82.132.231.131 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Then create an account. There's not away to get around semi-protection. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Radio Station Articles

Per WP:NMEDIA and Common Outcomes, the radio station articles you are nominating for deletion do not and would not have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A7 or deletion at all. These are protected articles under community consensus and the policies outlined above. Stop nominating them for deletion. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in an ANI thread regarding the above issue. You can find the ANI thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing?

Hi Compassionate727,

I noticed you added the close paraphrasing tag to Product of Imagination when you reviewed it. However, unless I'm not noticing something in the supposedly paraphrased source (which, for what it's worth, I have never read beforehand), I'm not sure that I see this issue in the article. I'm guessing the biggest issue you had was with the sentence regarding the 2007 remaster by Metal Mind Productions. While it is similar to the mariosmetalmania page, that sentence was actually modeled after how other Wikipedia articles have worded that information. You can find various album pages around Wikipedia that use similar sentences, as seen here, here, or here. The only other issue I could see with close paraphrasing would be the first sentence in the background section, which could perhaps be reworded to be more different from the mariosmetalmania page. Still though, I think both pieces of information, particularly the second questionable sentence, may fall under WP:LIMITED as there's only so many ways to say when and how an album was remastered and also when and how the band formed.

If there is some other issue with close paraphrasing that I'm not seeing, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Ri'Bassa (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You can take care of it. I trust your judgement. :) Compassionate727 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

• In the media: Wikipedia wins Asturias Prize; printing out Wikipedia; HTTPS switch

• Arbitration report: An election has consequences

• In focus: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

• Op-ed: Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time

• Technology report: HTTPS-only rollout completed; proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts

• Interview: A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

• News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief

• Featured content: Great Dane hits 150

• Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin

• WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Nasciaro

The redirect should not be deleted because "Nasciaro" is the Italian name for "Naxxar". Italian was an official language of Malta until the 1930s, and the town was known as "Nasciaro" until then. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware of that. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

• From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative

• Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia

• Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia

• Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done

• Recent research: How Wikipedia built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles

• Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced

• News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments

• In the media: Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing

• Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Acaia

Thank you for nominating my typo for speedy deletion. It's nic to know that mistakes I miss do get fixed! HLHJ (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Apollonios of Tyana

On page 88 Burnet 1892 wrote Apollonios of Tyana. However, the context makes clear that he refers to Apollonius of Tyana. Either keep the redirect or we fix the translation. And please inform author when speedy deletion is issued. prokaryotes (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. If the article doesn't say that the subject also goes by that name, I assume the redirect doesn't qualify. I'll add that name to the article. Also, Twinkle doesn't notify people if redirects are tagged for speedy deletion. I try to add the notification manually, but sometimes I forget. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage on page 88 Apollonios of Tyana https://archive.org/stream/earlygreekphilo01burngoog#page/n100/mode/2up I have changed the quote from the author here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism#Neopythagoreanism to Apollonius of Tyana. Imho, we do not need a redirect now, but it feels not 100% okay to change the earlier spelling. Thanks for explaining. prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone restored the redirect now, i have reverted the spelling edit to the original version. I note that this is a very confusing process. prokaryotes (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why move references?

You recently edited the S1.5400 article where you simply took the citations that have been carefully put in the citation section and inlined them. I like to keep the citations in the bottom of the article since this makes reading the source easier. And editing by sections rarely shows the citation itself, which makes hunting for citations problematic. All in the bottom allows for a single place to look up the references. Could you give me your logic for inlining them? Baldusi (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I always move them because when they're down there, they're not citing anything. I also think they look annoying. Anyway, I've seen very few articles do that, and none of them are good or featured. I think that says something. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually take offense at that statement. I was learning the mark up when I wrote that article and there's very little information to put in it. What I generally do now, is I use the {{Reflist|refs= <ref></ref>}} construct. I would rather undo your change and use that construct where the citations are cleanly displayed. If you don't mind I'll do it that way. Baldusi (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that I offended you with that. That was just my observation. And if you would like to do that, that's fine. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Strathaird, New South Wales

You've got this one the wrong way around. The Strathaird article was created, with attribution, using text from the Taralga article. The Argyle Inn website has ripped off the Taralga article, as is evidenced by the footnotes that go nowhere on its website correlating with real footnotes on the Taralga article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the references, which I agree looked suspicious. However, I noticed on the creator's page that CorrenSearchBot had found that website as a violation. This would mean that the website existed before the article. Didn't realize both of you had copied a different wikipedia article. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Mickgardner

Hello Compassionate727. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Mickgardner, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the username still inappropriate, and just the page not promotional? Compassionate727 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfD

Thanks for doing the new pages patrol. I must have passed cos I have never seen you before! I don't make many new pages, though, just fix up old ones. But it's good we all have our slots here at WP. On articles I try to be very clean and WP:MOS and so forth, at talk pages I try to write a bit more informally: That don't mean I am stupid.

I just want to thank you for helping out at RfD. It is a bit of a club, which is OK it just happens when half a dozen good-faith editors get around to trying to sort out some things nobody else cares about, for myself I am just kinda the indexer and linguist member of that club. But I should never want it to become an exclusive club, and do my best to prevent it being so with slightly snidey remarks sometimes, so please bung in! Our aim is a good one, to help readers find the information they want to find. (Sometimes we have to guess what that is.) All the rest is just procedure. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If Snyder Avenue, Pine Street Philladelphia) and Locust Street (Philadelphia) are deleted as redirects, does that leave me and other editors free to create articles on those streets?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Compassionate727 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit previous of me to do this by talk pages, but I hope you are OK with it, I've responded to User:Dthomsen8 on that user's talk page, xreffing back to here. Actually, Locust Street and Pine Street are both red, so there's no need for the Philadelphia qualification. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul-André Bempéchat

Hi, I made a biography page about a pianist whose music I like. You requested the page be deleted because it was not cited. At the time I had not finished my work on the page so had not yet added citations. I am ready to add citations so I would like to undelete the page.

I'm afraid I'm not an admin, so I can't undelete pages. You should talk to the admin who deleted the page about that. (You can find out who did it by visiting the page.) Also, if you're working on an article, I suggest you use your sandbox instead of the article mainspace. Also, remember to sign your edits to talk pages. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

• News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF

• In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology

• WikiProject report: Able to make a stand

• Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.

• Traffic report: We're Baaaaack

• Technology report: Technical updates and improvements

• Blog: These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Henriduvent

Hello Compassionate727. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Henriduvent, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is a perfectly reasonable user-page in accordance with WP:UPYES. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I had done it before and it got deleted. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised. It seems to me to be pretty exactly covered by WP:UPYES: "Limited autobiographical content - For example, languages you know (see Wikipedia:Babel) or fields you have knowledge in" and "Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities - Current or planned articles, topic areas". JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the history, the previous tagging and delete was clearly in error. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	THanks Tunomukumo Namutenya (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello Compassionate727. You tagged "Trans stereotypes" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. There are no hard feelings based on the nomination of the redirect I created, and I'm not placing this notice in an attempt to retaliate. I just would have liked to have been informed, and I think every user has a right to that. Thanks for patrolling the new pages! ~ Rob^Talk 19:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ep, sorry. Sometimes I forget that Twinkle doesn't do that for redirects. Compassionate727 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

MANY THANKS

Compassionate727 for honouring with the Redirect Barnstar. I'm very glad and will do my best in future, too. Best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Compassionate727 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk

Hello Compassionate727. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

CSD R3

Hi. Sorry, but I'm seeing some really confusing recent R3 nominations from you: Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk (mentioned above by Sigma), software leak, trans stereotypes, Megaloprepia, probably more. Can you explain? — Earwig ^talk 21:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more: Megaloprepia formosa, Megaloprepia magnifica, Chrysoena victor, Chrysoena viridis, Chrysoena luteovirens, FIFA women 2015, 2015 FIFA women. I can't understand why you are nominating these. Quick Google searches show the bird taxonomic names are valid, and many of the others are easily justified by WP:CHEAP. — Earwig ^talk 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Software leak isn't mentioned in the target, Internet leak, making it a redirect to something that isn't related strongly enough to be useful. I also didn't see Megaloprepia in its target, Megaloprepria magnifica in its, Chrysoena victor in its, etc. I'll admit that FIFA women 2015 and 2015 FIFA women were bad nominations. As far as Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk, I once nominated a Tukums 2000 as an implausible redirect to FK Tukums 2000. I figured that for the same reason that Tukums 2000 was deleted, Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk would also be deleted. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Internet leak does mention "source code leaks", though, but I'm unsure myself whether software leak should point to it or memory leak or be a disambiguation. I see that someone else has already mentioned the taxonomy redirects below, so I'll just add that a good rule of thumb for this sort of thing is to check Google; sometimes the page will be out of date or will not mention a particular synonym that is nonetheless valid. As for the football clubs, I still don't understand that? I looked up "Tukums 2000" on Google and found this, this, and this, which refer to it without the FK. Unless Tukums 2000 should point somewhere else, I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't exist. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 03:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, please, please, think twice before tagging scientific name redirects for speedy deletion

As the above comments allude to, you have tagged for speedy deletion numerous scientific names for speedy deletion. I don't know how much familiarity you have with biology or taxonomy, but the purpose of redirects is to help readers find relevant information as quickly as possible. The process of biological taxonomy often involves authors giving different names to organisms, which are later found to be the same species. When this occurs, the oldest name has priority, and all other names are considered taxonomic synonyms. These names, even if currently invalid, have historic importance, and sometimes are revived (e.g. subsequent analysis reveals that a name previously regarded as a synonym is actually distinct enough to warrant separate species status). Thus, a person reading a 19th century source may find a species name that is different than presently recognized, and that's why we have redirects. Note that the current status of any article, whether it mentions alternative/synonymous scientific names or not, is not a good reason to hastily nominate for speedy deletion, and the redirect Pholidotus africanus you hastily nominated is in fact listed as a synonym in the article Giant pangolin. Please show some restraint in nominating, or raise concerns beforehand, otherwise your repeated nominations may be perceived as disruptive editing, and may break links, especially if redirects are deleted before a knowledgeable editor can object. I'm happy to answer any question about scientific names and or/redirects you may have. Good day, --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I kept looking at articles and not seeing the names of the redirects in them, which was why I kept nominating them. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep WP:CHEAP in mind. At the end of the day, unless a redirect is so absurd that it has no plausible use whatsoever (hrry ptr --> Harry Potter, for instance), then there's really no harm in leaving it. We're not breaking the bank over redirect storage space and bandwidth. ~ Rob^Talk 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Or unless it could cause some confusion. I have no idea if, for example, Pholidotus africanus is a potential typo for something else which has an entirely different meaning. That's my main concern. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have concerns about whether Pholidotus africanus or other scientific names are typo, please raise them on relevant talk pages. There is also WP:RFD if you are not entirely sure about a redirect. Let's not be too hasty with speedies. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased to find you have a CSD log so that your nominations can be reviewed (and improperly deleted redirects restored), and again, I must urge that you consider redirects for discussion first, if you have any doubt. An ounce of trust that former editors have made good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, or a quick Google search, can often allay concerns about implausibility. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, think twice about tagging any article for speedy. I have just removed your tag from Lever Group and I think there are a number of other similar tags that I have reverted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I second RHaworth's request above. I removed a few speedy deletion tags from a few radio station articles a couple weeks back, others had to be restored. In other words, a big mess. When in doubt, don't tag. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

• Editorial: So you want to get your message out. Where do you turn?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief

• In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved

• Traffic report: The Empire lobs back

• Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)