User talk:Teiresias84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] party state branches

Hi Teiresias, regarding your note at Talk:Liberal Party of Australia‎, I agree that we should create articles for the state branches of the major parties (see previous discussion at User talk:WikiTownsvillian/Archive 1#Nats). Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 09:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Watts

Is the article notable enough? I added a lot of links (and will work on it more later.) I also added a category for him. --Vitalmove 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I am not sure. The reason I tagged the article is that it is not enough context for me as someone who knows nothing about him whether he is sufficently notable or not. (Read up on WP:N and you will see what I mean).
If I were to guess, I would say being a host of a television would probably make him notable enough for him to have a page here. But it would depend on how important this television show is. As a rule of thumb, are there secondary sources (i.e. reliable websites, books, magazine artciles etc) about him in existance?
Your article is good enough that if someone thought it should be deleted, it wouldn't be deleted immediately but it would probably go to an AFD. That would give you about a week to improve it.Teiresias84 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yes there are secondary sources. I linked seven mainstream media sources on him in the article. Edit: actually I think only four of them are mainstream media (guardian, pressgazette, times, telegraph.) There are probably hundreds more on the net. Press TV is also a worldwide network beamed to televisions in every country, and streamed on the internet. --Vitalmove 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't stress. I don't want to delete your article. I am just concerned that it might not be notable enough.
It's good to see that you are adding references from mainstream sources. I think the sources you have provided are reliable enough. However there are other problems with some of them. I'll run through them.


  • [1] Reliable source. Good. However it terms of adding to Mark Watts notablity, it only mentions that he wrote a book, which in itself is not enough for inclusion. This should stay in the article for it is a reference for the fact he wrote a book, but it dosen't get him about WP:N.
  • [2] This is written by Watts himself, which only proves himself to be a freelance journalist. Which again, by itself, is not sufficent.
  • [3] proves only he was sued for slander. Lots of people are sued for slander.
  • [4] Again, written by Watts. Adds nothing to notablity.
  • [5] Good. Shows that he is the add of FOIA. If you can show FOIA to have had secondary sources, then that'll help alot.
  • [6] Again backs up his journalistic credentals, although I saw nothing here that showed he was the chief investigative reporter.
  • [7] Another example of his work as a freelance journalist.
My feeling is that this is a real boderline case. I was hoping for an article or two specifically about him, not involving him (hope that makes sense). Can you add something about his TV show. I think that is what potential makes him notable. But you only say he is the host of a show on a network I've never heard of (I am living on the other side of the world, granted. But that is the auidence you need to write for) in the introduction and never come back to it. Add some more on his show and it should be ok.
I hope this made sense. The point I am trying to make is just because an reliable source is written by someone or mentions someone, it doesn't make the subject inhertiely notable. I really don't mean to sound harsh either. The article is well written and you have used references which is a lot better than most other new editors. You just need to establish notability a little more. Any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.Teiresias84 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Still, any mainstream article can be described as "only saying" this and that about a person. The slander lawsuit was related to his successful book. I'll add another source for his prior title. The television station can be viewed on one of ten satellite bands as noted here http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=15384&sectionid=351020105 . Or you can view the internet stream here: mms://217.218.67.244/presslive . It's on twice a day I think. Have a nice day. --Vitalmove 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Bernau

If it's a hoax then why did it take over a week for you to delete it...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie Cottle (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you, i now feel reassured and am not so confused. I hate conpsiracy theories, i believe it is a great source for fiction, but should not be accpeted as a fact. I do beleive it is an attempt to get money and stuff. I appreciate your help. Yoda317 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abolished Victorian Upper House Provinces

Hi Teiresias84, can you please add into Victorian Legislative Council abolished provinces prior to 2002 as well ie Boronia and South Eastern etc. Thanks Cheers --CatonB (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Cool thanks Teiresias84 :) Cheers --CatonB (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)