User talk:DeadlyRampage26

Archives

Archive 1

Hi DeadlyRampage26, and thank you for getting involved in reviewing good article nominations. I noticed your review of Breonna Taylor, a page I have watchlisted. I'm concerned that it was a bit too cursory. For example, you may have conducted spot checks, as required by the reviewing guidelines, but you did not note that or reveal the results. Additionally, there are multiple sentences and paragraphs that are uncited; are you confident that all of them are content that could not be reasonably challenged? If not, the nominator has some work to do to meet criterion 2b. These aren't the only problems with such a quick review, but I tried to keep it to ones that are not subjective. If you'd like more input, you could reach out to one of the Wikipedia:Good article mentorship/Mentors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for reaching out. I tried my best to match with the criteria and determine from their but I understand that I am new to the area and probably have errors. As for the citations, I did notice some of the events that you mentioned above. However, I referenced back to an edit I made on Donald Trump where I had criticised some unsourced areas and was told by a more experienced editor that it was generally OK (they referenced a specific WP rule) so long as the topic was covered broadly in another source somewhere else in the article. I might have misunderstood that or something, I'm not completely sure. Thanks for bringing your concerns to me. Since I have already passed the GA do you know of a way to pull it back until these problems could be corrected? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not really sure! That'd be a good question to ask at the discussion at WT:GAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[My note from the assessment page: I am leaving a message on your talk page about additional citations and perhaps a minor tweak which can bring this up to B class. Rather than leave it with a lower rating, I think we should leave the request open and you can note that the article has been revised and ready for assessment.]

Comments This article can be brought up to B class relatively easily. I recommend that you make the following additions or changes in this article for a B class assessment. The suggestions below are not likely to be a problem for you since they mostly are about where citations are needed.

Every paragraph should end with a citation. Otherwise, it is not clear whether the preceding information is covered by a footnote earlier in the paragraph.

With the exception of information tables, which can be referenced in more than one way, Refs should not be in a separate Ref note at the top of a section or paragraph but should accompany the text in the appropriate places.

If all the information in a table is from a single source, that source can be cited in the caption to the table or introductory sentence. You have done that for the timeline table, assuming nothing in the table is not verifiable from the source, including items to be determined.

You will see tables with every item in the table accompanied by a citation. This is usually seen when the information in the table comes from different sources.

The military history bot rates articles not put up for assessment, up to B class. The bot will downgrade an article when it sees no citation for each point in a list and in the introductory sentence if it ends a paragraph or seems to be a separate paragraph. Coordinators and experienced assessors, who review bot assessments monthly, will overrule the bot if the opening sentence or caption has a citation meant to cover all of the bullet points. If these come from separate sources, separate citations should be given. Coordinators will also downgrade an assessment if they judge that the bot overrated the article, which does happen occasionally.

The sentences after the first sentence in notes for the table have no citations. Although the second sentence in each short paragraph may be logical or obvious, they appear to be predictions or speculation. Without citation of a source, they would be considered original research or opinion and not appropriate for a Wikiped article which is to be based on reliable sources. The first sentence of the second short paragraph apparently comes from a source that can be cited.

Notes require citations if the content is not completely obvious that the information comes from a cited source (and it usually probably isn't.)

If you have any questions, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK yep just replying from work Right now will get on that later DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just have left this comment and a ping for you on the assessment request page. I am adding it here to be sure you see it because I plan to remove the thread about this article from the request page soon. "I also will leave this comment on your talk page and will remove this request soon. The article as written contains certain conclusions, predictions and speculations. While I only noted the need for citations in a previous note to you, without citations, I cannot tell whether these statements are synthesis, your conclusions or are supported by the sources. Citations would cure this. So I am leaving this at start class. If you think this is a misjudgment or too harsh with respect to a C-class rating, feel free to ask another coordinator or active former coordinator or coordinator emeritus for another assessment or opinion. Otherwise, submit a new request for assessment after you have time to provide the citations. If you wish me to place citation needed tags rather than just give the general examples that I noted previously, please let me know." Donner60 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi yep I'm fine with it being removed I've just got a bit going on so can't get on the edits right now DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeadlyRampage26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jacqui Lambie Network (Tasmanian Branch), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw you created an AFD- if you enable Twinkle in your Preferences under "Gadgets", it gives you an easy way of automatically doing all the formatting for an AFD with just 1 or 2 clicks :) GraziePrego (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man I wasn't aware of that feature. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeadlyRampage26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Troy Pfitzner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyRampage26! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Australian Greens several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Australian Greens, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good editor, don't tarnish that with silly edits like this. I T B F 💬 13:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Was a bit drunk when i did that. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyRampage26,
Can you explain why you edited another editor's user talk to move discussions into an archive you created for them, as shown at Special:Diff/1241255323, Special:Diff/1241255352 and Special:Diff/1241255372? TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to an archive as a courtesy for both Jy and myself to introduce the editor to archives if he wanted to use them in the future and also so I would stop getting pinged and in the hope it would stop further arguments about a stalemated conversation. I wasn't aware that it was a big deal exactly? I would refrain from doing it for anyone else if so? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I wouldn't do that. Refer to WP:TALK#Personal talk page cleanup and WP:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. While you might think you were being helpful, most editors would have a problem with you doing that. At the very least Jy Sandford might object to the manner in which you archived their page, specifically that you didn't do a particularly good job of it. Please refer to User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for one of the ways of setting up automated archiving. But seriously if they didn't want the discussion to be on their user talk any longer it's up to them. TarnishedPath^talk 14:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok yep thanks won't happen again. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northrop B-2 Spirit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make contact? Require some assistance re JLN Buybuybye (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like some help regarding JLN, I can certainly help! DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I just share my contact details here? Buybuybye (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better if you just left any questions you may have here as opposed to contact details as I think it's against wikipedia rules to make contact details available to the public DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TT's Media staffer has updated the JLN significantly to reflect negatively on the JLN. I would like to discuss the process to update the page to be more balanced. Buybuybye (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ill take a look and get back to you. If required i will contact wikipedia admins and Tammy Tyrells electorate office themselves. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, which account do you believe is the staffers? Jaycoopersydney? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jay Thorogood-Cooper is TT Media Officer Buybuybye (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary address book lists Jay Cooper as Media & Policy Officer - Sen T Tyrrell Buybuybye (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Buybuybye, I can't see that person listed when I look at https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300639 or https://www.directory.gov.au/commonwealth-parliament/senators/tasmania/senator. Can you advise where you are getting that information from? TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Ive just looked at his respective LinkedIn page. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaytcooper/?originalSubdomain=au which he has posted job applications on behalf of tyrell and also says he works in that role for Senator Tyrell DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buybuybye, I have added a message to Jay T. Coopers talk page at Jaycoopersydney DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have that information from a JL staffer who has access to internal address book - but cannot independently confirm Buybuybye (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buybuybye, please read WP:OUTING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can I / sHould I delete that reference? Buybuybye (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buybuybye, I don't think you need to do anything given the LinkedIn, but please be aware for future reference as if that LinkedIn wasn't in existence you would have been releasing private informaton. If you want to be sure you can go to WP:OVERSIGHT and click the link at the end of "The fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team". TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Surface Fleet Review, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2024 police activities in Australia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northrop B-2 Spirit you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Northrop B-2 Spirit for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Surface Fleet Review you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Surface Fleet Review you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Surface Fleet Review and Talk:Surface Fleet Review/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Surface Fleet Review you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Surface Fleet Review for comments about the article, and Talk:Surface Fleet Review/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]