User talk:LocalNet/Archives/2017/July

Archives

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a first time for everything I guess. Was really hoping the talk page conversation meant we could avoid this, but alright, we're here. See you on the noticeboard! LocalNet (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The violation report was retracted yesterday and there's been no new activity afterwards, so I'm assuming the situation is solved. LocalNet (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for usage of draft page

Since the article Samsung Galaxy Note 8 has been redirected, could I move the deleted info of the article to Draft:Samsung Galaxy Note 8, so some of us can start working on it, before the release? Darius robin (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Darius robin: Unfortunately, I have no knowledge or experience dealing with draft pages. Never edited or created one personally. There are probably some rules in place that can explain whether it is permitted to create drafts or not, but I just have to be honest and say I have no idea what those rules are. But regarding the actual article, the one that existed here, I just want to make sure you know that according to policy, Wikipedia knows nothing at this time, even if reliable sources have discussed things that seem 100% true. But once the product is official, we can start adding information. Usually, I believe drafts are most appropriate when an already-established article needs a major change at a specific time, in which copying info would be easier. That happened the minute Donald Trump got inaugurated as President of the United States; major changes needed to be done in very quick pace, and thus I remember seeing someone copied directly from a draft with the changes. But in this case, there is no more information to add or changes to make at this time. Am I making sense? :P :) LocalNet (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LocalNet: Emir of Wikipedia had made a draft page of OnePlus 5 before it released, and then, just after launch, the article was updated and moved to the main page, I was thinking that the same could be done here. Thanks. Darius robin (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darius robin: Hmm... I was actually just thinking of restoring the now-deleted Note 8 page when it gets announced and then add information gradually. How would you be able to add information to a draft with information that hasn't been officially announced yet? LocalNet (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LocalNet: I could add the deleted info to the draft, and just after launch, update it with the new info, then move it to the main article, that would make things run faster, but what you are saying is fine as well. Darius robin (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darius robin: Technically, what you are saying sounds okay. But most likely, there will be other editors, both registered and IP, who immediately use the main page and edit there. That would create edit conflicts that would be harder to solve. I am not going to tell you what to do, but I will personally wait until Note 8 is official, restore the now-deleted page to the way it was before to the redirect, and then actively add info to that. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LocalNet: Ok, fine with me. :) Darius robin (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail

You can't revert an edit just because the article does not appear online.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Ohhh, it's a print source! I didn't check the date field originally and did not see that that it attributes to a 2006 article. Sorry! I have restored your edit. I'm so used to digital where everything is searchable. LocalNet (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could go to WP:RX. I don't have time to look up the article when I have access to it because I have so much else to do when I am able to do that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would have helped, but I should have added that information years ago. But my article on Gamil Design is finally getting deleted. I did my best but I don't have a leg to stand on. The phenomenon does need to be mentioned somewhere even if the company fails notability.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether to do this, but should Gamil Design be a redirect to the section I added the information to? It was eventually found not to be a notable company, though somehow i got the idea that it would pass. it stayed around as an article for eight years!— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Wow, haha, eight years! Hmm... There may be policies or guidelines in place about redirecting to article sections that I am not aware of. Based purely on information, it might be suitable to do so, but please don't take my inexperienced argumentation for it. There ought to be some form of guideline somewhere? In my experience, Wikipedia has guidelines for everything, it's just a matter of finding the one specific sentence mentioned somewhere :P LocalNet (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it in the deletion discussion. i had no hope of stopping it from happening and it didn't appear they wanted to redirect either.19:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)