Talk:Hotel Revival

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

Sources to use[edit]

Because some people apparently don't know how to do a Google search?!

--ɱ (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

  • This is an outright falsehood that I have no idea why you keep repeating when @Rosguill: told you they were never reviewed and I have nothing to do with whatever "attack" may have happened. But thank you for providing these for other editors. If you'd included sourcing at the beginning, none of us would have had a need to tag these as questionable notability. There is no inherent notability without sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: Hello? I personally witnessed Scope Creep unreview 14 of my articles. This was one of them. I believe my article creations don't need reviewing, as seen here (until a harasser unreviews them). Never had to be part of the New Pages Feed until Scope Creep unreviewed it. And don't for one second try to rationalize tag-bombing. Have you read WP:N? Specifically WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN? The onus is on you to at least do a simple, one-second Google search, at the very very least, before tagging an article for potentially failing WP:N. And it's a fucking joke because this one flies by WP:N. And you have no faith in me as a content creator to accept when I tell you that, until I provide sources? Ridiculous. ɱ (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your issue with @Scope creep is and it's of no concern to me. If I see an article that has issues, they're tagged for that. And yes, the onus is on you, me or anyone else as a creator to sufficiently source articles so that they survive in mainspace. Me tagging one article is not "tag bombing". I really think you need to take a step back if you can't see that there was a clear issue with the article as it existed. Several editors raised the same concern. Star Mississippi 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See below, there were six sources listed between the article and the talk page. It's your responsibility to check to see if the subject is notable before tagging it. This idea that "There is no inherent notability without sourcing" is an incredibly dangerous falsehood, completely contrary to WP:N. Will you strike that, Star Mississippi? ɱ (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I won't. Because No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and what is that evidence? Sourcing. Even a historic building/district doesn't guarantee notability, although it's a factor.
But we disagreed here, and you've added sources which solve to the tag so we're done. Instead of edit warring about the tag and trying to invoke attacks, you could have done that sooner Star Mississippi 18:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're dead-wrong about a policy, which is funny for an admin. Refs are not needed; sources only need to exist for notability. But whatever. Bye. ɱ (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The outright bombasity for you to believe an admin who just barely saw part of the conflict and misinterpreted it, over me, who saw article after article I contributed to marked "unreviewed" in my watchlist, by a user I've never interacted with before I voted against them in an AfD? In a blatant abuse of their NPP rights? @Liz: warned them against such an abusive attack to their talk page. Yet they deserve to have that right stripped if they think they can use it to target someone who votes against them. ɱ (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even @Onel5969:'s tag is misplaced when between the article and the talk page, there were already six immensely strong, GNG sources listed, even from a national newspaper. ɱ (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: Removing maintenance templates is seen as disruptive and will eventually get you blocked by an uninvolved admin who will look at this. I would sincerely advise you not to do it. Why are you edit warring over it? What is the point? The point is to improve the article. The notabilty tag works by one editor adding it and another uninvolved editor reviewing the article to determine if it is notable. The person who created it doesn't remove it, ever. That is problematic that you've removed it. It makes me think there is some problem with the article. The reason I sent your articles to NPP to review was because of those poor infoweb sources, which are likely to be Non-RS and the fact that your removed the bareurl template. Those refs are woeful. Please don't use them or I will need to sent the articles back to NPP. I would suggest removing all them, from all your articles and update accordingly. scope_creepTalk 11:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am laughing my fucking ass off. Admins, this user doesn't deserve to be taking on any sorts of review tasks if this is a valid comment. Just because you're paywalled from accessing a source and I don't have time yet to do all the tedious filling in refwork across the many articles, this user just assumes bad faith, "they're un-notable", and tag-bombs. If they spent a second to observe my work or ask, they'd find out what you target is not a source at all, it's NewsBank, a database of reputable newspapers hosted by a great many large public libraries. I use it nearly all the time to cite the widely-respected statewide newspaper The Columbus Dispatch. The largest and oldest paper in the second-largest city in the Midwest. Apparently I "have to scrub them all". Only the premiere source on Ohio news in the country. Get the hell away from my work, Scope Creep. This is your final warning. Your meddling with me, just another AfD opponent, is wholly unproductive and has to end. ɱ (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself dude. But if you use any non-rs infoweb references, the article is going straight onto the NPP queue. I'll be checking the rest of your article for them. scope_creepTalk 16:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NewsBank only hosts reputable newspapers. But, cool, thanks. I think you need to be reminded that the New Page Patrol is for new pages, not for any articles you find lacking. The articles might not even show up in the feed, they're so old. ɱ (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, I don't have a horse in this race, but infoweb.newsbank.com is a database, similar to ProQuest or newspapers.com. It is not the primary source of this information. The fact that the these references have "infoweb" urls is because the Columbus Metropolitan Library seems to be using a proxy to access that database. The newspapers hosted on NewsBank should be evaluated on their own merits.
@Ɱ. you already probably know this, but you should fill out these NewsBank citations rather than leave them as bare URLs. Readers can only access these citations if they're subscribed to NewsBank. Any readers without subscriptions cannot even see the metadata, let alone the text of the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I know. It's just hard to write hundreds of articles while being bogged down in refwork. I can get to it later, and I did. Anyway, shouldn't be a focus as the unreviews were illegitimate. ɱ (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hotel_Revival&oldid=1202807065"