Jump to content

User talk:TomaHawk61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, TomaHawk61, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft

[edit]

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 252,027 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

[edit]

Hi TomaHawk61, regarding your revert of me here, I'm not really sure this seems to be an issue of WP:WEIGHT? Reading through the weight guideline, that seems to be about not giving weight to fringe sources or ideas. I'm happy to hear your reasoning here, but it doesn't seem to match up with the definition of weight, right? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zenomonoz,
I appreciate your comment, I suppose [[WP:WEIGHT]] might not be the most direct policy to state here. I do still think the content should be removed and here is my reasoning. This information doesnt seem to add much value to the article and seems to be a breach of [[WP:NOTEVERYTHINNG]], I don't think it passes the [[WP:10YT|10 Year Test]]. I don't think it really has weight due to the fact I could only find a single source mentioning it, the same one you cited (The Daily Cardinal). The Daily Cardinal is a student newspaper reporting about events happening on its own campus. Here are two quotes from the wiki-page regarding this exact use case:
"Student-published college newspapers are generally considered reliable sources for verifying information, but they are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability as mainstream news organizations, and they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
&
"Special care is required for citing self-published sources, which includes press releases and other information about a college/university published by the institution itself or written by its paid staff"
Lastly, I think it sets bad precedence to cite non-notable quotes from commentators as this would make it okay to just make running lists of edits on every single discussion a commentator has.
Can you share your reasoning why this information is vital to the article? TomaHawk61 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TomaHawk61, thanks for providing better reasoning. I'm in favour of removing it (I clarify at the bottom), but I though it would also be helpful to highlight why some of the reasoning you provided is incorrect:
Regarding "Student-published college newspapers are generally considered reliable sources for verifying information, but they are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability"... WP:NOTABILITY is used to determine whether or not something should have an article in the first place. Notability is not about whether or not something should be mentioned on the article. See WP:NNC, which states "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles"... and then states Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For a full list of content policies that do apply to content within articles, see WP:CONPOL.
Some of the links you provided are advice/essays which are not Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Always check that at the top, because what is written in essays/advice are not enforceable, but can be helpful places to develop rules of thumb.
So, I've removed it from the article after looking at WP:BLP. I think it can be trimmed because his disagreement with somebody's lifestyle is not very noteworthy. This is of course, somewhat subjective and ambiguous, but I think it makes sense.
Zenomonoz (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zeno for the clarification, if it is one policy I'm looking for 90% of the time its a policy that can help indicate what content is [[WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC|encyclopedic]]. Maybe what I was trying to convey originally was [[WP:UNDUE|Undue weight]]? WP:CONPOL is a new one, I'll add that into my arsenal of policies, which is always appreciated. Keep up the good work, it is refreshing to work with another editor in such a cordial manner. TomaHawk61 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TomaHawk61&oldid=1268417985"