| Revision as of 13:56, 29 September 2020 editARoseWolf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,593 edits →Such a shame: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:00, 29 September 2020 edit undoSpiderone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers192,724 edits →Such a shame: rspNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,129: | Line 1,129: | ||
| :::GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. ] 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC) | :::GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. ] 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what ] says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.] (]) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC) | ::::It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what ] says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.] (]) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::::In that case, please submit it for ] ] 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:00, 29 September 2020
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
dePRODing of articles
Hello Spiderone, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
- PROD removed from Jung Sung-Ho, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (has played twice in K-League))'
- PROD removed from Lim Jong-Eun, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(pcupdate, rm prod (has played in 18 K-League matches))'
- PROD removed from Cha Keon-Myung, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, rm prod (played in 2 K-League matches))'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
dePRODing of articles
Hello Spiderone, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
- PROD removed from Lee Chi-Joon, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (played once in K-League))'
- PROD removed from Song Chang-Ho, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (has played in K-League))'
- PROD removed from Yoo Chang-Hyun, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (has played in K-League))'
- PROD removed from Kim Ba-Woo, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (played in K-League))'
- PROD removed from Junichi Misawa, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, remove prod (played in J2 League))'
- PROD removed from Masakazu Tashiro, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (played in 3 J League matches))'
- PROD removed from Kohei Shimoda, by User:Jogurney, with summary '(reference, pcupdate, rm prod (has played in J2))'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Lionel Messi - Is it you who keeps changing the statistics?
Messi has 3 assists overall this season as of 19th September 2009.
1) Created Pedro's goal in Super Cup
2) Won Alves the free kick for his goal against Atletico (It counts as an assist, read the rules)
3) Assisted Keitas goal against Atletico
He's played 5 games and scored 5 goals, with 3 assists. Lionel Messi's wiki page has now been locked, however it needs to be changed and corrected.
File:Escobarowngoal.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Escobarowngoal.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were 
Ian Rose (submissions) (A), 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), 
ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) 
Casliber (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to 
Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
A page you started (Tiffany Doggett) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tiffany Doggett, Spiderone!
Misplaced Pages editor Compassionate727 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice job.
To reply, leave a comment on Compassionate727's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Red card list
That was my next course of action! I will get to adding rescinded cards at some point, feel free to make additions though. :)
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
- Courcelles (submissions)
Kosack (submissions)
Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Nova Crystallis (submissions)
Iazyges (submissions)
Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
- Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
- Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
- Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.- Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for multiple pings...
I was copying and pasting and forgot. Hope all is well with you. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- @TimothyBlue: no worries! I'm genuinely interested to see how these discussions go but previous consensus has always been to delete them really and I can't see any real reason to change that but I'm open to all arguments. Spiderone 12:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Alex Vause.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Alex Vause.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Such a shame
You apply subjective archaic principles that defy logic or understanding in today's society and directly contradict Misplaced Pages's purpose for existence. Women's sports can not be treated equal to men's until the wrongs of the past have been corrected and therefore require special observance. Women's sports have been attacked incessantly since World War I when there was a fear that women's sports would overtake men's sports in popularity. It's clearly seen in the decisions of the FA in regards to football. They were blatantly suppressed and you have continued that process even though the articles pointed out clearly met WP:GNG, in that they had reliable and verifiable sources that clearly defined the subjects the teams in question and were able to be visible to a world population, which is the overall guiding principle of Misplaced Pages and can not be superseded by any other guidelines. It hurts my heart that you choose to use this platform to further a biased agenda. I want you to know that I will fight this at every turn in the destructive behavior that you and others here further because women will no longer stand by and allow our history, our topics and our lives to be disregarded and subjected to the old principles of irrelevance that men have reduced them to in the past. This is at best ignorance of the intent of the Notability guidelines and at worst a deep seeded indifference to women's sports and attempt to suppress it's importance and further the agenda of a "man's world". Good day to you. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was a discussion that multiple people participated in. Why am I being singled out here? Spiderone 15:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You were the nominator and have been in many articles that I suspect were dubiously deleted for the same reasons. An editor should not use subjective opinion to determine if an article is worthy of inclusion and where an editor believes that one guideline may determine an article unworthy that editor must always revert to all superseding guidelines to make that judgement prior to introduction of an article for deletion. The article clearly passes WP:GNG and all other guidelines are submissive to this as primary. This article and all others recently deleted by the same cabal of editors will be brought up before a deletion review and that judgement will determine the fate of these and other articles like it.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. Spiderone 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what WP:NSEASON says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, please submit it for Misplaced Pages:Deletion review Spiderone 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what WP:NSEASON says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. Spiderone 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You were the nominator and have been in many articles that I suspect were dubiously deleted for the same reasons. An editor should not use subjective opinion to determine if an article is worthy of inclusion and where an editor believes that one guideline may determine an article unworthy that editor must always revert to all superseding guidelines to make that judgement prior to introduction of an article for deletion. The article clearly passes WP:GNG and all other guidelines are submissive to this as primary. This article and all others recently deleted by the same cabal of editors will be brought up before a deletion review and that judgement will determine the fate of these and other articles like it.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)