Jump to content

User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New to Wikipedia

Hi there,

I would like to clean up the page "James Rutka" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka). In particular, I would like to remove the comment boxes about "relying excessively on close connections" and "neutral point of view" at the top of the page. How can I do this?

I'm also interested in cleaning up pages w/ similar problems. I'm happy to get involved.

Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Varblues69:I've mostly stepped away from Wikipedia for the time being due to real-life activities. I saw the message on your talk page and User:Philg88's reply. If his reply applies, then I don't have anything to add. If you are asking for technical help on how to edit articles in Wikipedia in general, please read Help:Getting started. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback on User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton

Hi, I'm writing because I see that you negatively reviewed Draft:Seth Moulton a few months back. A few days ago, I created a userspace draft page on the same topic, User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton. I wasn't aware of the existence of Draft:Seth Moulton until just now, although I did see that a prior Seth Moulton page had been deleted.

I've been getting feedback on my draft from Kudpung, who was involved in a prior speedy delete - please see our discussion and his review on his talk page. I was wondering if you would be also be willing to review my draft and comment on its suitability for moving to the mainspace. I believe that it satisfies WP:notability requirements - in particular including references to a significant number of in-depth articles, specifically about the subject, in independent sources, including national press (TIME Magazine) and prominent regional media (e.g. extensive coverage in the Boston Globe). My inclination is to move it to the mainspace in the next day or two, but please let me know what you think. Also, please let me know if you think I should incorporate content from the prior (declined) draft. Thanks! RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rustavo: I've greatly curtailed my Wiki activities lately due to real-life things. I doubt I will be able to give this the attention it deserves. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RFA question

Hi there. In my last RFA, you indicated that I should wait 18-24 months after the end of the arb case before refiling. It's been about 18 months - do you think I should continue waiting? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look into your edit history since then, so I can't give you a specific answer. So I will give a generic answer that I would give anyone I was unfamiliar with who ran for RfA 18 months ago and asked me the same question you asked:
There are several things that must be considered by you because they be considered by editors, including editors who will make a point of "digging deep" into your edit history:
  • Are you obviously unlikely to repeat any behavior that was considered "negative" that led to your previous RfA failure? That is, is it clear that you learned whatever it was you needed to learn and that you have a long period of editing that demonstrates this?
  • If there were any issues that were in the "needs more experience" category, have you edited in ways that clearly show that you now have the requisite experience?
  • Is the quality, quantity, and diversity of your editing since the past RFA, if looked at alone without reference to any edits prior to, during, or as a direct-follow-up (e.g. "thank you" notes to the last RFA), the kind of editing that would likely result in a no-brainer easy-pass?
  • Were there editors who suggested you wait longer than you have already waited whose opinions carry a lot of weight and/or were there a significant number of editors who recommended you wait longer than you have already waited?
If the first 3 are true and the last one is false, then you will likely pass. You may not be a "no brainer easy-pass" but you should pass. Otherwise, I recommend waiting longer.
The best person to ask if these questions are true is probably the person in the mirror. However, if you aren't objective enough to answer these (especially #1 and #2 - you need to "grade yourself very hard" on these two questions) then you may lack the objectivity in judging yourself and possibly in other areas as well. Consider what areas you may not be objective in and promise yourself that you won't use the tools in those areas. Also promise yourself that if someone calls you on the carpet for something, it may be because you've edited or used the tools in an area that is a "blind spot" for you - that is, an area where your objectivity is impaired.
I'm sorry I couldn't give you a custom answer that fits you, but I wanted to write the above not just for you but for other editors who are considering a second RFA, particularly if the failure of the first one is for any reason other than JUST "too soon/needs more experience/needs more well-rounded editing" or something along those lines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Thefederalist.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thefederalist.com 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/Thefederalist.com 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. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Davidwr. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "declined/testcases".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Template:AFC submission/declined/testcases}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Carbon6 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)