User talk:Nosebagbear/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Nosebagbear, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

In response to your feedback

Can I ask what changes have been difficult for you? It seems like you are also trying to make an article on the Haileybury Model United Nations, and I have some feedback for you. Let me know if you want some advice on my talk page. Getting started can be a little daunting, but there are lots of people willing to help!

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 

Wasn't quite sure whether to answer here or on your talk page, since your talk page conficts with your message :S

Firstly, cheers on the reply, i hadn't thought I'd get a personal reply, Secondly, please feel free to post your comments on my HMUN entry, either on its talk page or here (or if they are easy pick out (i.e. not completely mixed in with my own comments) just edit the entry and I'll deal with it

In answer to your question, i just find the point that the Wiki way of effects, which is said to be easier than HTML, most definetly isn't - it starts out easy(ish) but gets worse very quickly. I taught myself GuideML (the beeb's form of HTML) pretty quickly and I definetly found it easier than the system here

I'm struggling to remember the rest of my mini comment, so I'll end my message there for now Cheers Nbb Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ha ha, you are correct, my notice at the top does conflict. I guess I just say it like that because most new users aren't sure if their message is "receieved" by anyone if they just post it here. But I'll keep that in mind. I'll be looking at your entry later today. You can reply to me here from now on, I'll be watching the page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cheers, did you find anything significantly wrong? Most importantly was there anything that would prevent it from passing its review? I've added a few more sources, especially from the real UN so as to make it more reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked it over (sorry, I got caught up last night and couldn't respond), and have a few suggestions:

• I think as the article stands, it is imbalanced in terms of what an organizational article should look like. Right now, the article has too great a focus on the internal affairs of HMUN (e.g. its proceedings, its governing body, its timetable). I think some of these details are OK (although I think the timetable should be scrapped in favor of a general listing of only the most important events-- the time that everything is scheduled for is also not really important). However, the article is lacking in terms of coverage from independent sources. So far, the vast majority of your sources are from HMUN or other organizations it is affiliated with (and are therefore not independent). Your references to the U.N. do not discuss HMUN specifically as far as I can tell (like this one). You need a separate section devoted to just outside coverage of the group and its proceedings like this public broadcast and this video coverage. The problem is that primary sources do not contribute to an article's reliability, no matter how many there are. I'd recommend using Google News or Google Books to find if HMUN has any coverage is those sources.
• Cut, cut cut. This is related to the above, but the amount of internal technical information is overwhelming.
• In your writing, you should not use the pronouns "we," which comes up a number of times. Related to that, if you are a member of the organization, you'll want to be careful of any other biases in your writing, particularly when it comes to promotional writing.

I think the article is in a passable state otherwise, but it does need some work. It might pass review, and it might not as it is now-- I actually don't have a good sense for how picky reviewers are. I hope this was helpful! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I've added a number of secondary sources, and specified within, which are secondary and which are primary. I have a couple of questions - i can understand your comment about the UN sources not specifically mentioning HMUN - except most of the points where a UN website is used as a source it is to give demonstrations of a general (M)UN point, not an HMUN relevance - for example the source you used as an example, I was using as my citation for the UNSC countries, number of SC countries and which ones were permanent SC countries - all of which is necessary knowledge for the HMUN SC. As a UN site it is automatically public and more trustworthy than most news sources would be. This particular source, for example, i used the page the UN gives to MUN, since it is easy to read - i could link to the actual voting resolution for the year but its hard to read

As another question - why are the various MUN websites not counted as trustworthy concerning themselves? I mean i understand when concerning a person making a website to support themselves, but here? - I mean in the bbc article, can nothing with any news or information provided by their site, programs, or reporters (including their photographers who provide for many news corporations) be used? The conferences listed are some of the most trusted within the MUN world - obviously not relevant outside it, but it is simply a small scale version of not being able to trust a large scale source that provides much of the world's public usable sources Can the reasoning, and strictness, be explained, the jump from the nutshell explanations in the "sources" help in article wizard to the full explanation was a bit beyond my capabilites Cheers Nbb

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haileybury Model United Nations.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello! Nosebagbear, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haileybury Model United Nations concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haileybury Model United Nations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Haileybury Model United Nations

Hello Nosebagbear. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Haileybury Model United Nations.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haileybury Model United Nations}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glossary of magic (illusion), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mind reading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD vs Merge

Nbb, in your reply to my AfD you mentioned the merge option. I didn't realize that was an option and that is basically the thing I want. Would it be OK in your view to close the Afd right away and reopen as a merge discussion? Would that get good community participation? Springee (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: - now that's a reasonable question, one which may make more sense to ask someone on the AfD or Proposed Merges board - AfD is one of the most monitored places on Wiki, whereas Proposed Merges is less - but I couldn't give you a clear answer to what degree. While it can technically be discussed directly on PM, it seems that standard view is for people to go along to the article's talk page (already having a merge discussion) - but truthfully I don't know how much more active adding it to PM makes the talk page discussion: could be much more, could be fairly little.

Not a glowingly helpful answer I realise - however two things come to mind for why you should do it this way:

i) It's what you are actually going for, and you might run into additional grumblers on AfD (looking at my message I realise it was rather curt - blame the lack of tea, apologies)

ii) The discussion, albeit early on, looks like it's heading towards keep as stands, so you couldn't be worse off. Removing it yourself should at least reduce chances of being accused of further forumshopping by taking it to PM.

Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding AfD discussion on article Cybersafar

Hello Nosebagbear, Thank you for your interest in the AfD discussion:Link. Regarding your mention: " 12."Registrar of Newspapers for India". rni.nic.in. - broken link. This could be worthwhile and a good one to find". Is this link: broken and not accessible to you? If its accesible isn't it worthwhile to mention? | Thank you Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Ganeshprasadkp:, I can now get to the link, and I have updated my comment accordingly. It functions fine as a source for the specific use of it as a citation, but doesn't help the article towards general notability, which is the issue at hand.

As a side-note, great to see multiple significant edits since the article was nominated for deletion - if only so many article creators/editors acted in the same fashion. However, putting something in the edit summary box is worthwhile, so we can see what any given edit did to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Nosebagbear, for extended interest. Meanwhile, sorry for that I actually meant by "isn't it worthwhile to mention?" is as - whether isn't it proper to include the reference source in the article, which I didn't mention properly. By the way, can you please reply what's 'Userfy' ? Its nowhere mentioned here: Link | Thank you, Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ganeshprasadkp: - userfy is a rare result of the Articles for Deletion process, which can only happen when only the article's creator has edited the page. A userfy vote is in favour of removing the page from the mainspace and putting it back in the creator's sandbox for them to further update before resubmitting. It is often called draftify, since it returns the article back to draft form. As to your original question - you've got multiple references for the first location, so which ones you use is up to you. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thumbs up Nosebagbear. Sorry again, as for the essay wasn't the right one to be mentioned as I did above. Thanks again, and your way of response is appreciable. | Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words

And the Barnstar of Recovery! I did try to make a minimal but persuasive case, and I'm glad it worked. -- econterms (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of recovery...

Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...

You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted 9 days ago, and is going strong. Fifty-two editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished one so far, with more to come.

Discussions are underway about how to upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too) on the WikiProject page.

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   03:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Ingraham Angle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Ingraham Angle. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Signature

Hello! Just FYI, you might want to add your signature to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Melania. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: - thanks. Though I've always seen AfDs automatically tagging comments from users without them in. Might be something that Twinkle adds but isn't always there. Any case, I've added now Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

it's not vandalism when a lot of people would say it's a true statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryangiggschestwig (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ryangiggschestwig: - if genuinely held it may not be vandalism, but it's a controversial statement to say that's what she is best known for. That means it needs a specific reference demonstrating not only that she lost her skirt but that it was such a big media event that most people know her for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clifton Cricket Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden duck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT