User talk:Scu ba

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Flag of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Scu ba. Thank you for your work on Kings County Republican Party (New York). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Scu ba. Thank you for your work on Dan Cantor. Chaotic Enby, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great job, congrats!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Chaotic Enby}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Donnell and Naccarato moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, O'Donnell and Naccarato, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Articles must be based in independent third party sources, not the company’s own website. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Braun Research

Hello, Scu ba. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Braun Research".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Scu ba. Thank you for your work on Sarmat Ikoev. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: O'Donnell and Naccarato (April 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clearfrienda was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This page was moved from main to draft because it wasn't ready, but was resubmitted without any changes. It's pretty close, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP yet. Large portions of this aren't sourced properly (inline citations don't match). Please improve the article before resubmitting or it will get declined again.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:O'Donnell and Naccarato and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clear friend a ^💬 03:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scu ba! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Clear friend a ^💬 03:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Scu ba. Thank you for your work on Alan Alborov (politician). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Scu ba. Thank you for your work on Inal Tasoev (politician). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2024 Syrian parliamentary election

On 22 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Syrian parliamentary election, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hohokus Township

Hey there, regarding this edit, how come you reverted to restore the article, when the township clearly became Mahwah, New Jersey? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical municipalities that got abolished should be kept on separate pages Scu ba (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you feel that way? If historical municipalities became a current one, then that would just fall under the "history" section, as there isn't much to add if it no longer exists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent with having an abolished township having it's own page. In this instance although they shared borders there is no continuity between the municipal governments, and the former township was abolished instead of reincorporated as is usually the case in a township becoming a borough.

Additionally, only a portion of the township became Mahwah, there where also portions that became Allendale and Upper Saddle River. All three boroughs can trace themselves back to Hohokus Township, as such it would be unfair to the other two to have Mahwah monopolize the history of the township. Scu ba (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention Ramsey too was also spun out of Hohokus township Scu ba (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2024 Algerian presidential election

On 14 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Algerian presidential election, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM closure

@Scu ba: You were involved in the move discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, yet you closed it before the seven-day mark. Please revert your closure. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 17:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, please also see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, counting votes as you did in the close reasoning isn't a good thing to do in a highly-controversial move. I'd also suggest leaving that one to an administrator. Sir MemeGod  17:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod@Gluonz do you genuinly believe that the consensus would change if the talk is kept open another two days. This is a clear issue of WP:Snow. This is anything from a highly controversial move, and if you're not supposed to count votes to establish a consensus how else are you supposed to? if you think the page should be moved back, open another move discussion and see if the consensus changes. Scuba 17:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were to agree with all of your arguments, this still is an involved close. This clearly is not an IAR situation, as multiple people disagree with your closure. Also, the date-based proposal has significant support. The closure should be reverted. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 17:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date based proposal is not the subject of the move, the subject of the move was moving it to a geographic-based diambiguator. If people want it to be a date than they should open a talk for that but that talk couldn't have happened if the existing one stayed open. Scuba 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I have seen extremely one-sided RMs and AfDs be switched around last-second (hence the 7-day rule). This is also not a SNOW issue, as Gluonz pointed out several people (16, to be exact) disagree, far from SNOW. Sir MemeGod  17:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16, or about 1/3rd of the people in the conversation. I've seen WP:Snow closures where it was close to half against. Scuba 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that those closures were made by involved editors. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be shocked. Scuba 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod, @Scu ba: Perhaps this could be sent to move review? That way, we could establish consensus as to whether the requested move should have been closed. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 18:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be immediately reverted. Closing an RfC you are participating in is completely unacceptable. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~100% needs to be taken to move review.~~ Sir MemeGod  18:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could if needed. Apologies, striking out my comment as it came off as aggressive. Sir MemeGod  18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: I have not initiated a move review before and was involved in the requested move, so I would prefer not to start a move review for this. You can initiate one, if you would like to. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 19:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I did not vote in the discussion, I do consider myself involved with the article and article subject and in good-faith won't initiate a non-NPOV (at least to me) discussion. Someone else can, though. Sir MemeGod  20:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or @Marcus Markup. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was a pretty bad close. Not only did you vote in the discussion, but you also didn't read the discussion. 30–16 is hardly SNOW territory, especially when multiple support votes only supported the date-based proposal (July 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump (which you "counted" anyways for some reason). That brings it down closer to 20–16, then if you actually properly weight the P&G-based votes and the "too early"/"wait" votes, you could probably even make the argument for "no consensus". Let alone the fact that the discussion was only open for three days. There's no getting around a move review on a contentious involved close like this, so I suggest you revert yourself now. C F A 💬 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are not allowed to close any requested-move discussion if you are involved, even if you think it is (or it is) SNOW territory. This paragraph from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions explains the situation here pretty well:

[The snowball clause] should not be used to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because move discussions are not a vote; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to avoid precluding significant input and as a courtesy to ensure that it really will be a snowball.

C F A 💬 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I couldn't even revert if I tried since there are two assassination attempts and the original page has become their disambig page. Scuba 02:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review initiated here: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 September. Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've overturned this move as it was clearly improper. Please don't close RM discussions (or really, almost any type of discussion), where you are WP:INVOLVED. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the close at Talk:August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion#Requested move 1 September 2024 on September 17 was also an involved close since you had expressed an opinion here. Please do not do this. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

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) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]