User talk:The Wicked Twisted Road
|You're probably here because I did something wrong. No one ever takes the time to comment when things are going well. Oh well, go on, spit it out.|
Alco Engines et alEdit
Thank you for starting those new pages. I had worked on both the 241 and 244 engines, but had not posted either because they were combined. --SSW9389 13:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I see you have expanded them significantly, can you please cite the information you added using in-line footnotes? The level of specificity is in my opinion too great to not be directly attributable to the sources. Thanks, The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's the same source.--SSW9389 02:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I would if I could, it's the same book you are sourcing. The same facts you are not stating. Your version leaves out a lot --SSW9389 02:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- How can you not? If you're adding the information, surely you have access to the source and can cite it within the article, you can't just hand wave it away by saying that it's already been referenced in the article, because specific claims need to be specifically cited. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I submitted my article a couple of years ago to Slambo. Here's what he wrote:"Ah yes, sorry for the delay. I had expected to see it as a subpage. Regardless, I just read through it. The lead section needs a little more on where the engine was used and the total production run numbers; this section should be a miniature version of the entire article. I like the pacing of the development section and the overview that it gives on the engine's design. It has enough detail to be interesting without the minutiae that gearheads tend to add. There are a few spots in there where I'd adjust the grammar and/or punctuation a little for consistency and MOS considerations (along with separating it into a few paragraphs rather than one big paragraph). The sections that follow that seem more like notes than well-formed content. There are a few sentence fragments in these sections. You've got some great references listed at the end (these are the resources that I would expect to see for an article on this subject); a few inline footnote citations to these references is the next step. But I'd say promote it and we'll all work on improving it. I'm sure I've got some additional references in my collection that can be used to further verify and fill out the latter sections in the article. With inline citations, links to associated articles, a few images (especially images of the engine itself, but images of the locomotives that used it would be a good start) and an infobox, it won't take too much more work to get it to GA nomination level. Slambo (Speak) 13:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)" My thought is several people need to work on this article.--SSW9389 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't necessarily need multiple people; one person can write an article just as well or better than a group. That said, I do think we need other opinions regarding the sourcing before doing anything else, because I still don't think it's acceptable in its current state, so I'm going to bring this up at the railroad WikiProject. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Bud you left out too much detail and you deleted Preston Cook. Both of those are non-starters with me. There were huge gaps in what you wrote, I filled them in, and maybe the articles should go back to sandbox for a do over. How about I do the pioneer work and you do the finish work? --SSW9389 03:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, jumped gun on creating pageEdit
Hello, Wicked Twisted Road (and anyone else out here), Thanks for checking up on me. I think I accidentally published a page I was creating. I really wanted to create a draft of it, flushing out all the content, before actually 'publishing' (?) it for approval. I did launch a wizard, but may have skipped a few steps. I'm okay with deleting the page I 'created' if it means I can start over. I have started editing it now though. If I have to, I could probably edit my content offline, and then submit. I'm not sure I read correctly, can I create the draft in the sandbox? I have to do more reading on creating a page. I promise that Edgar is worth creating a page over, and there's going to be tons of citations about his work. Theresa/ Indevelopmeant (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry I wasn't able to follow up with you; unfortunately I got awfully busy off Wikipedia, but I see Melcous helped you. Working on the article in draft space is definitely the way to go about it, and it looks like a good start. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking in. I got stuck on other jobs also, and have to go back to creating this page. - theresa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RV Hero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenheart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
ITN recognition for Donald TuskEdit
Update on ITN / al-Jina mosque page (2017 al-Jina mosque airstrike)Edit
You made what seemed to me to be a correct edit by removing an extremely dubious source.
That content has been added back by the original creator of the page, with edit summary:
- the source seems to be credible. You need to show otherwise before removing the sourced content
As we can both understand from a brief glance at that website, this is bullshit. That is not a credible source, and the user is experienced enough to know that. The user has elsewhere demonstrated remarkable understanding of how to scrutinize unreliable sources example 1; example 2
What we have here is a case of an experienced user with a strong agenda trying to weasel some controversial claims into a high-profile/high-traffic article due to his personal convictions about the war. And it won't be easy to solve. I'm allergic against this bullshit, so I'll be turning off Wikipedia and getting back to things that matter, but if you want to pick up this fight, feel free to do so.
- I'm trying to repair the article. It was a disaster that should never have been posted to the main page; in addition to the dubious sourcing it had a blatant copyright violation. I've never touched ANI in my life and have no desire to start now, but I'll keep an eye on the discussion. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1958 East River collision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Corps of Engineers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Notability of Lakesha WoodsEdit
Hello - just wanted to take a moment to respond to your concerns about my article. Lakesha Woods is a published author, spoken word artist and editor-in-chief of a nationally known publication that has a strong presence in the African American community. My user name may be similar or the same as a PR company, but it is just a username and I am not affiliated with any PR companies, and I stand to gain nothing at all from creating a Wikipedia page for Lakesha Woods. I follow urban entertainment and magazines.
Lakesha Woods has interviewed, musicians, entertainers, and reality TV stars who are very relevant in television and entertainment. The citations are to published interviews from secondary parties that interviewed Lakesha Woods. Many of the artists and entertainer that she has interviewed are included in Wikipedia.
Cover stories on famous people such is Tyrese, Momma Dee (a reality star included in Wikipedia) celebrity chef Charles Mattocks who was also on Dr. OZ. I would have never known about some people if I wasn't following her work. Images where also included to show proof that she has interviewed nationally and internationally recognized individuals. Rather than be biased based on personal lack of knowledge of the individual let's see if we can give other users a chance to contribute and improve the article. I added as many citations as I could. There is so much online about her and I chose the content and interviews that I personally listened to. What can we do to make this better? I do believe that if her page is deleted it will continue to be added because she is continuously gaining recognition in urban media outlets all over.
I also don't understand why would you make a comment about my username. Aren't we allowed to make up names to protect our identity as contributors? If I had known that having a name similar to a company would be a problem I would have added my name. Please explain, or advise because it took me a very long time to create that article and I would not want to contribute again under this username if that is going to be a concern again in the future.
- Well the crux of the matter is the general notability guideline, and the related biographical notability guideline, which boiled down means that the article has to be based on reliable third party sources (the verifiability policy), and the subject has to have been covered extensively by those sources sufficiently to prove that they are for some reason impactful. The article works in the context of the first part, you've done a good job finding the sources and citing them, but where I see it falling down is in the second part. Looking at the article, a lot of the references just don't satisfy the criteria for reliable, secondary sources, or they don't cover Woods extensively enough. I'll go through the references one at a time and explain my reasoning.
- The first one is a tangential mention of Woods, in the context of a separate event, which itself isn't notable--we can't list minor artistic performances like that, otherwise we'd end up with a pile of indiscriminate lists. So unfortunately it doesn't really meet the threshold of "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" from the biographical notability guideline.
- The second one has exactly the same problem as the first.
- The third one is again a tangential mention of Woods, and also, simply being an interviewer doesn't automatically confer notability--in the context of an author, their works have to have become significant in their own right.
- The fourth one doesn't appear to be a reliable source because it seems to be self-published, with no editorial oversight and whose purpose seems to be promotional--it describes itself as "promoting our guests activities."
- The fifth one runs into the same problem--it seems to be a self-published blog that doesn't meet the standard of a reliable source.
- The sixth one plain doesn't support the claim, it's a landing page. In any case, a database like that is not going to be helpful in establishing notability, since it's indiscriminate by definition.
- The seventh one appears to be the same as the fifth, with a shared name.
- The eighth, ninth, and tenth do not mention Woods.
- The eleventh is again a self-published blog that isn't a reliable source.
- The twelfth again doesn't mention Woods.
- The thirteenth through fifteenth are primary sources--they were written by Woods herself. Primary sources are generally frowned upon, since they don't do anything to establish notability, and are pretty much only used for background information once secondary sources have been used to show notability.
- The sixteenth doesn't mention Woods.
- The seventeenth is an indiscriminant list of people who have attended a particular college--while it's acceptable for citing that particular fact, it doesn't show that Woods is unique among her peers.
- The eighteenth is again a landing page that doesn't mention Woods.
- The nineteenth is a primary source--while it's perfectly acceptable to list her works, without showing that the book is notable itself in some way it doesn't confer notability on its author.
- The twentieth and twenty-first are again articles written by Woods.
- The twenty-second doesn't mention Woods.
- The twenty-third and twenty-fourth are again articles written by Woods.
- The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth don't mention Woods.
- The twenty-seventh is the same book as the nineteenth.
- To make it better, there have to be references to better sources. They don't have to be to the New York Times or anything like that, but there has to be evidence that she has received coverage in publications that have higher standards than individual blogs. Local media or industry publications are perfectly acceptable, but Woods would have to be the subject of coverage, instead of being mentioned in passing. I hope this makes my concerns clearer. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: lastly, if you want your opinion to be a part of the deletion discussion, you should comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakesha Woods; this conversation won't be considered or seen when the discussion is closed. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Notability of Lakesha WoodsEdit
Thank you for clearing that up. I can work on citing publications that mention her as the main subject. So would that mean I'd have to delete the citations to interviews(on her) where she is only the main subject for part of the show?
- Yes. Citing reliable publications. You wouldn't have to delete citations to reliable sources that reference her in passing so long as you have enough citations elsewhere in the article to establish notability. Passing mentions are perfectly fine for mentioning a fact in the article, they just aren't enough to by themselves support an article. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!Edit
|Compliments on your edit of 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing as noted in tht Talk:2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing page, under "Criticism of Western governments for silence." I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia on-topic and purged of political commentary.|
Iron Maiden's manager official album sales statement for 2017.Edit
I'd like to inform that R. Smallwood - manager of Iron Maiden group in the special interview for prestigious "Music Week" UK magazine, stated Maiden has sold "100 mln copies of albums" to date (first day of May'17). To read "Big Interview" must log in for free trail. Statement of the impresario we can find at the end of article.
Read this one please and make a change on official band'a Wiki bio.
Georgia Ports AuthorityEdit
Could someone please address recent edits to the Georgia Ports Authority Wikipedia page? We need to update our information, much of it is outdated and inaccurate. We need our page to look similar to those of the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaddy82 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- You have absolutely no right to a Wikipedia article, particularly not one that reads like a press release. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that information should be presented in a neutral point of view, and the language you wrote is completely unacceptable in that regard. You should read the guidelines on conflicts of interest before editing further, and I suggest that at the very least you develop the article as a draft at Draft:Georgia Ports Authority before rewriting the article. You should also utilize the conflict of interest noticeboard to request comments from other editors regarding any content changes you wish to make to the article. If you merely reinsert the promotional content into the article it will be removed again. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We will take a look at that and try to come up with a draft, I'm actually new to contributions on Wikipedia, so I'm sure those resources will be helpful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaddy82 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MAEdit
|Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic|
You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit
reliable sources saved to Internet ArchiveEdit
reliable sources saved to Internet Archive
Speedy deletion nomination of Gang VIllageEdit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Gang VIllage, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. B dash (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
HSC Jonathan SwiftEdit
Sorry about my revert on this article. I followed the wrong user. I reverted myself, so everything is OK now.
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
Nomination of 2012 Algerian Air Force C-295 crash for deletionEdit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Algerian Air Force C-295 crash 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/2012 Algerian Air Force C-295 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)