User talk:ProgrammingGeek/Archive 7
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ProgrammingGeek. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Adoption
Hello,
I am a new user with very little experience (although I have some experience with Wikiquote on another account). I am interested in being adopted by you.
Alternate Side Parking (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Alternate Side Parking, absolutely. What aspects of Wikipedia are you interested in? ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have a little bit of programming experience and I would like to see articles relating to computer science, expanded and improved. However, my primary interest is in history, particularly American, and Jewish history. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely
- News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks
- In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias
- Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform
- Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring
- Technology report: Bots galore!
- Special report: NPP needs you
- Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six
- In focus: Alexa
- Gallery: Out of this world!
- Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion
- Humour: Talk page humour
- Opinion: Strickland incident
- From the archives: The Gardner Interview
Inappropriate use of Rejection Template at AfC
You did not just decline but rejected Point_of_Graves_Cemetery. I fail to see any reason for that call. This is a valid topic and should have been approved Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac, I do apologise. The article was resubmitted after I (perhaps incorrectly) declined it the first time, and I lost my cool. I'll try to make sure I'm more levelheaded in the future. Thank you for intervening. Regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- No worries we all make mistakes. Keep plugging away at those AfC submissions! Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned by your comment that you will accept this draft when LimeRoad is deleted to make way for the move. LimeRoad is pending deletion as G6 because it is the redirect from draftifying LimeRoad, which was done because another reviewer thinks that it is not ready for article space, and it has not been updated. I can shuffle the redirect into hyperspace to allow acceptance of the draft, but the draft is a draft because it has been draftified to decline it. Please explain. Maybe you didn't notice the history. If so, maybe that is a lesson to learn about what to check on checking histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft: Mt Washington Fire Protection District
I Am Writing Concerning THe Mt Washington Fire District Page.
I Am Wondering Why It Was Declined, As You Never Left A Reason Why. If It Is A 'Citation' Issue, I Ask You Visit The Zoneton Page And Look At The Accepted Amount Of Citations. There Is No More Information I Can Find Anywhere Without Taking The 1/2 Hour Drive To The Main Station Itself, As The Department Doesen't Exist Anywhere On The Internet, Reliable Sources Or Not.
Edit: ------------------
'Not Suficciently Notable For Inclusion' What Is That Even Supposed To Mean? About Half Of The Stuff Here Fits That Description.
FlyingPanzer (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, FlyingPanzer.
- Zoneton is acceptable for inclusion because it satisfies the notability guideline for places. However, Mt Washington Fire Protection District does not meet the guideline for organisations. Best regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Mt Washington Fire Protection District Does Not Fall Under The 'Organizations And Companies' List Because It Is A City-Funded Public Service, Not An Organization Or A For-Profit-Business. And After Reviewing The notability guideline for places, Zoneton Doesent Qualify, But Back To The Topic: Mt Washington Does Satisfy The guideline for organisations Even Through It Is Not A Business Nor Organisation.
FlyingPanzer (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- FlyingPanzer, to pass it requires reliable, secondary sources. The vast majority of the sources on your article are from the fire department's own website. I suggest you get another reviewer's input here. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
ProgrammingGeek, I Ask You To Get Into My Shoes And Try To Find Other Sources Besides What I Have. Because I Am 100% Positive There Is No Other Information About The Department.
FlyingPanzer (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- FlyingPanzer, I think that's more an indication that the article isn't notable and unfit for a page on Wikipedia. Again, you are more than welcome to get another reviewer's input. I appreciate your interest in creating articles. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- FlyingPanzer, I'm requesting input by another reviewer. Whoever decides to respond should do here. Thanks ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have rejected the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have accepted the article. It is a "district" with taxing authority so it is an inhabited place and autonotable just the same way we handle school districts. Nicely set up article don't see that much detail and history on fire departments very often. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Just want to add if we were dealing with a small Fire Department operated by City of X, that is like the planning department or taxation department at the City and we could merge the page into the City of X page if the department is not independantly notable. The City not the Department would be the inhabited place. Hope that helps and does not confuse more. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)