User talk:Mr swordfish

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

About the Turing-Apple misconception

Hi, I would like to check in and ask if my most recent update to the list of common misconceptions has included a proper citation that mentions the Apple-Turing myth as a "common myth". In case you're not sure, it is the one from Business insider. Please let me know if there are any issues. Thank you! Windywendi (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Business Insider article cited:

A common myth is that Apple's logo references British mathematician Alan Turing, who's known as the father of computer science. But the logo's designer has said that it's not true...

That's exactly the kind of reference we need to add an entry to the page. Thanks for your contribution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects of circumcision on sexual pleasure

Hi there,

I have seen that you had once taken part in a discussion on the adverse effects of circumcision on sexual pleasure.

Just in case you are interested, I wanted to inform you that this discussion is now on again, as the article circumcision in my view inappropriately ignores the conflicting studies that show negative effects.

Main discussion here: [1]

Ongoing RFC here: [2]

Kind regards Chaptagai (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Nastos moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Michael G. Nastos. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 ^{TT me}

Please see [3]

434 mentions of this person on Wikipedia and you claim "not notable".

I've added a couple of cites and resubmitted it.

Seems to me that there should have been more dialog before summarily deleting this page. It's supposed to work by consensus not just "I do not think it is ready". I'm not a new editor, and I'm familiar with WP:GNG. Our opinion differs. There are mechanisms other than summarily deleting material for resolving differences of opinion.

This page was created three months ago. In that time four editors have contributed to it. That says to me that there is implied consensus that the article meets the notability requirements.

There's a process for deleting articles called AfD. Why didn't you use that process instead of coming in three months later and deleting it by fiat and without discussion? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not deleted. It was draftified, as noted in the above message. An editor of your experience might know the difference. Draftification is for articles which may be notable, but currently do not meet GNG standards. Which is exactly what this article is, it may be notable, but does not meet notability standards as it stands. Being unreviewed for 3 months is also irrelevant. When it came up in the queue, it was reviewed. Mentions on WP are not a criteria towards notability, in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources is. Also, the other 3 (not 4) editors who touched the article, made very minor contributions, and none having anything to do with saying whether or not the subject is notable. Also please read Matrix's comments on your draft submission, for which I concur, only the Downbeat piece goes towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael G. Nastos (September 14)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read WP:INTERVIEW and WP:BLOG, only the downbeat source seems to be reliable.

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:Michael G. Nastos 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.

—Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr swordfish! 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! —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Jurek moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Thom Jurek. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Mr swordfish. Thank you for your work on Marion Hayden. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since it falls under WP:BLP, please make sure to accurately footnote every sentence with reliable sources. Please also add more coverage to establish WP:Note. Additionally, please fix the bare URL. Thanks and have a great day!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]