User talk:Becky Sayles/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Beebarian

Hi! I proposed article "Beebarian" for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beebarian). Two other editors joined the discussion, both of whom agreed that the article should be deleted. You closed the discussion as "no consensus". I object to this closure. Since nobody objected the deletion, and since two editors supported the deletion, I think the consensus was clear to delete the article. Could you, please, explain why you think the consensus was not reached? Vanjagenije (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination." This means the article may be put up for deletion again immediately, without bias against whoever nominates it the second time. "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." Note that AfDs get relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". Because the AfD in question had been relisted twice with no additional discussion, no clear consensus was achieved, and no consensus was the appropriate closure.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

10 January Sockpuppet reply

Hi Becky, I am Tanishq. I would like to plead sincere apologies from my colleague Tyson. I have told him not to do that again. I'll make sure nothing as such happens again. Thankyou. Regards. --Tanishqsh (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keren Rice page

Hi - I added references to demonstrate notability and added in Wikipedia-internal links which reference her research and other awards. Rice's research and her accomplishments are highly notable and others with parallel accomplishments (like President of the Linguistic Society of America) do appear on Wikipedia. How do the revisions look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist8 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Linguist8: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I took a look at the references you added, and they are somewhat helpful in terms of understanding the subject. But for notability purposes, the references expected should be about Keren Rice. They should not merely mention her, or quote her about something else, and definitely should not be written by her. The basic idea is that someone independent of Keren Rice decided it was worthwhile to write something about her. Does that make sense?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Becky, There are a lot of references that I had on there, and a few more I just added, that are about her. I guess what I'm kind of wondering right now is that here's a renowned female academic, for whom publications referencing her can be found and are on the wiki stub, and her entry can't seem to get added in. I know it's been a problem for Wikipedia, it's striking lack of underrpresentation of women and minorities. She won three huge awards in Canada for which there is press coverage (which I cited). She was President of THE national organization for Linguists. A number of the references in the entry are about Keren Rice and her notable accomplishments. I hope you'll be able to review the additions I made earlier this week and today. Thanks! Linguist8 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Linguist8:. Let's discuss the references in the draft. I'll take them in the order in which they appear.

#1 appears to be something Rice wrote
#2 isn't about Rice, only quotes her about dying languages
#3 was written by Rice
#4 is published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#5 cites a text about linguistics that presumably cites her
#6 mentions Rice only once, identifying her as LSA president
#7 may be the only good reference
#8 is routine coverage of an award
#9 is more routine coverage of an award
#10 is more routine coverage of an award
#11 is more routine coverage of an award published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#12 is more routine coverage of an award
#13 is someone else's CV, that only lists Rice as an author of publications
#14 is a primary source only used to identify her position at the university #15 is the same as #14 #16 only mentions her once and is published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#17 only mentions her once and is published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#18 is written by Rice #19 only lists her name as a fellow and is published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#20 only lists her name as a president and is published by an organization of which Rice is a member
#21 doesn't even mention her name
#22 Appears to be an ISBN number to a book Rice wrote
Note that multiple references from the source, for example more than one article from the same newspaper, are counted only as one for notability guideline purposes. I'd be happy to review the draft again, but as it is now I would not be able to accept it. If you can find and add a couple more references like #7, but from a reliable source other than the "Globe and Mail", then a reviewer would be more likely to accept the draft.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion of Gajendra Rathi

Why you closed it as no-consensus? Can you please relist it? There was one vote for delete and I have seen many article for deletions where nominator was the only vote and article - deleted. That is not correct though and this deletion request had 1 vote for deleting. నిజానికి (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@నిజానికి: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination." This means the article may be put up for deletion again immediately, without bias against whoever nominates it the second time. "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." Note that AfDs get relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". Because the AfD in question had been relisted twice with only one !vote that only listed guidelines, no clear consensus was achieved, and no consensus was the appropriate closure.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You had to vote. I want it deleted because I think that the person is not known like others who have their biographies on here. What can I do now? నిజానికి (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@నిజానికి:Can you clarify what you mean by "You had to vote"?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You said that you thought that there are lack of votes, your vote could solve it. Even you know that the person is not known. నిజానికి (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@నిజానికి: Yes, while it is possible that I or anyone else could have !voted, no one did. At the time I was functioning as an uninvolved editor making a decision based on what was in the discussion at the time. Even if there had been one more !vote, it still would not have necessarily contributed to the discussion sufficiently to warrant a different outcome. Now that the AfD is closed, you can see my comments above about what you can do, or see Wikipedia:Deletion policy ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tells that I can ask for a review. I will better ask one of the admin who helped me before, will tell you soon. నిజానికి (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at that deletion discussion and changed the outcome to "soft delete". If that had been a WP:PROD, the article would have been gone two weeks ago. There's no reason to keep it around if two users present policy-based rationales for deletion and no one objects. Huon (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Huon: Thanks for taking a look at it. Can you help me to understand the process of determining consensus? I saw that the nominator seemed to have a valid argument for deletion. But the next !vote appeared to only point at policy without addressing application in that instance. Before the last !vote, it looked pretty straightforward that having been relisted twice without any discussion, there was little to base consensus on. The decision to delete hinged on notability, and the discussion focused on whether the notability guideline was met. But with only two editors agreeing, was this sufficient to withstand scrutiny with regard to local consensus? Is there/should there be a minimum threshold for achieving consensus? Or was this a case where "best judgment" applied? Looking at the bigger picture, I likely would have !voted to delete. Do you consider your own !vote when determining consensus?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I took Anupmehra's !vote as "I have checked the following possibly-relevant notability criteria and found that they're not met". Now if someone had disagreed, we might have needed a discussion on why the respective deletion criteria are (or aren't) met, and then a mere exchange of "is notable" - "is not" would have carried little weight. Here, however, both the GNG and the more specialized notability guidelines had been considered, and everybody who commented (all two of them) agreed that they were not met. If the article had been prodded, it would also have been deleted; "soft deletion" is a result of an AfD that's basically equivalent to a PROD because participation isn't large enough to claim a stronger consensus. "Local consensus", however, is hardly an issue when the page was listed at AfD for three weeks - how much less "local" could any consensus become? It's not as if the editors conspired in some out-of-the-way place to do something that the wider Wikipedia community might disagree with. Finally, if I had considered my own opinion, too, I would have closed the discussion as "delete" without the "soft" caveat. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Becky Sayles/Archive 7. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Chris Kyle Criticism Section

I have several problems with the criticism section of the Chris Kyle article. The first is with the quality of the writing. It appears to have been written by a child. Some person "shares quotes". Some other person "shows passages". What kind of writing is this? The second problem I have is with the citations and sources. Where did these quotes come from? The primary sources, Kyle's books, are available. Quotes from his books should cite his books with title and page number. Why are secondary and tertiary sources (tweets and paragraphs written by some people on their websites) cited when the primary sources exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpeepz (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Quotes from the book are available there, the criticism section is already well-sourced.91.10.58.43 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"EM simulation software" page undo

Ok, the "article for deletion" tag is restored. But i reverted your edit because it replicated the damage to page caused by the user "The Banner"

Taylor Swift page editing assistance, Attn:Becky Sayles

Hello and thank you for your quick response. You stated that I need to establish a consensus before I can use the 'edit semi-protected' template for my alteration on the requested page. I'm a bit new to this. Could you tell me how to establish a consensus on this request? Thank you.

Kreg CremerKregCremer (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @KregCremer: Thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. Since the page is protected and you've already posted on the talk page, it would make sense to wait for other editors to discuss your request to establish a consensus. You may want to add to the talk page, and provide a rationale for adding the material you requested.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Becky! KregCremer (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KregCremer (talk • contribs) 07:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

University of Connecticut Motto

sorry if this is redundant, I believe I've submitted same subject via another forum within Wikipedia, but have no idea if it found fertile ground, since I forgot to "sign it" with the four wavy squibbles(~). I just hit "save page"

so pls bear with me and allow me to reiterate my concern which is:

on the Wikipedia University of Conn "main" page, where several other universities/colleges list their iconic symbol and then their associated latin motto, I could not detect the listing of the UConn latin motto anywhere; just a circular blue/white logo, with school's name and established date.

UConn's motto was and I believe "is" and always will be: "Qui Transulit Sustinet".

I am a grad engineer of UConn, Storrs campus, bsme, 1963. you can confirm the above motto as being correct by contacting UConn, Storrs, Ct, 860-486-5961, school administration office.

MY REQUEST IS: that Wikipedia include the UCONN motto: Qui Transulit Sustinet under the UConn circular symbol on right side of Wiki's "Home page" for the University of Conn. Other schools have this added in a similar spotk, e.g., check NYU quickly and you will note same.

thank you for providing complete and accurate info on all subjects to the best info available and to your best efforts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.15.150 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)  Done ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

working on it

Hi Becky, I wanted to ask if you would please remove the annoying flags at the top of the page. We are working on the page and will get it to satisfaction as soon as possible. Brannon Bates' images are stuck in the Wiki system and cannot be removed or edited; so the best we can do is make it an official Wiki page. We are working on citing and links now. Thank you, Becket 162.207.1.66 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What page are you referring to?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brannon_Bates is the new page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brannon_Bates.jpg is the page we're having trouble deleting. If we could unite them somehow or delete the old one it would be great if that is possible. Why do we have to sign off with the four tilda's? 162.207.1.66 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Becky, I am tired and will check your messages in the morning. Thank you. Goodnite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.207.1.66 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Becky, If there is anything else I can do to make the page more acceptable I can help. Thank you Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chadpaul222: the "flags" at the top of the page are called templates and should not be removed until the issues with the article are resolved. The discussion to delete it is linked in the first template, and those discussions usually last at least one week, maybe up to three weeks. The second one, I have removed after checking the possible copyright violations. If you don't want the article deleted, then see what is brought up atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brannon_Bates_(2nd_nomination).  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Updates have been made to the page and the talks. It is still a work in progress but we're getting there. CP Chadpaul222 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) The Beckster! Hi Becky, I wanted to ask if there is a tutorial on how to do the citing / references? It's not as straight-forward as the other entries. Chadpaul222 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chadpaul222: Help:Wiki_markup#References_and_citing_sources and Wikipedia:Citing_sources  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

there should be enough verifiable cited references that the flags may be removed. The rest will be cited and written to perfection and we will post here once it has been approved by us and finished so you can begin scrutiny. Unless your grading policy is more harsh than i expected, in that case please let me know. Also, some of the details contain information regarding celebrities and I do not think a public forum is the proper place to discuss it. Chadpaul222 (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chadpaul222: Thanks for the info, but this is best handled at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brannon_Bates_(2nd_nomination) where the discussion about deleting the article is taking place. If the consensus there is to delete the article, then that will happen. I may be able to offer advice about editing, but if the article is deleted, then there won't be anything to edit. The AfD process has already started, the difference you can make is there.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Great chatting with you Becky. You're a real charmer. Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)