User talk:The Wicked Twisted Road/Archive 3

The article Bliss Jet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only references given are press releases, which do not establish notability. Company is not yet in business.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bliss Jet 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/Bliss Jet 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's the same source.--SSW9389 02:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Then cite it, using in-line footnotes. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Donald Tusk, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 11:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You can also see my edit history for a ANI discussion I've started on a related issue. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mediasource (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediasource (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the crux of the matter is the general

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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?

Mediasource (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

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)[reply

]

A cup of coffee for you!

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. Penlite (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden's manager official album sales statement for 2017.

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.

http://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/the-big-interview-phantom-management-s-rod-smallwood-and-dave-shack/068326

Read this one please and make a change on official band'a Wiki bio.

Cheers! Up The Irons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello, The Wicked Twisted Road. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources saved to Internet Archive

• Talk:Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse#Internet Archive

69.181.23.220 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

For the record, this was as a result of some page move vandalism by User:Jvaldilopez. Although I am terribly flattered to have gotten a talk page message out of it. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my revert on this article. I followed the wrong user. I reverted myself, so everything is OK now.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Been there, done that. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Wicked Twisted Road. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in starting Uinta Basin Rail. I've updated and put some work into this page, as there is renewed activity. I'm considering nominating the article for a DYK. However, I'm concerned the sourcing isn't the best. It currently uses some self published sources, though very good and well sourced themselves. I know certainly I'd get in trouble at FAC with that, but I'm positive I could defend the accuracy of the sources if given the chance. The problem is once you're on the main page you aren't give the chance, no mercy ;). So if you are aware of any better sources than what I've found I'd be most grateful. Thanks again for starting this page. Dave (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be concerned about some of the self published sources, which may have been why I hadn't added anything about the early history when I wrote the thing originally. I did some Google Books sleuthing and scrounged up some contemporary sources for some parts, although I don't have much time at the moment to do any more.

I'm not really active on WP these days, although your message has spurred me to throw together an entirely unrelated article tonight, so thank you. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. Looking at it again, I think I can get away with the utahrails.net source provided I can replace the other blog like sources. I'll give it one more look, as with the recent improvements, we're down to a couple of sentences. Thanks again. Dave (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]