Hi King of Hearts!
This is Screwball, I'm currently editing articles related to the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, 2010, and the Lee Whitnum article has re-caught my attention recently. I am interested in reviewing the deletion of the page, and since I am unsure how to handle this, I undid the removal of the page and started to edit it again.
I do not know the procedures, but I feel that this article is relevant and has room to grow. Since you are an administrator and you were involved in the discussion, I would like your help.
Thanks!!! :-)
-- Screwball23 talk 04:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, King of Hearts, and thanks for taking the time to close the recent Pink film nominations. On your doubts as to "consensus" on the award, there are citations to English texts in the article on the award. More sourcing-- both English and Japanese-- can certainly be added, and I will work on it to make it more clear that the award is indeed "notable", cite-able with reliable sourcing, etc. (Not to continue the arguments, but I would note that the Delete votes refused to acknowledge the sourcing and proofs of reliability continuously presented. I would hope simple refusal to budge from one's first !vote, in spite of contradictory evidence does not affect a "consensus" close.) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 19:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cousin_White_Paper:_Aching_Mature_Lewdness was appropriate. You appear to have treated the discussion simply as a vote count, without weighing the policy/guideline questions involved. In a situation like this, where there's no clearly expressed consensus after the initial listing, the closer should either relist the discussion or reach a conclusion by evaluating the arguments under applicable policies and guidelines. Please revise your action as indicated. If you do opt to weigh mthe arguments, please take my newest comments, recently added to the four companion AFDs, into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
King of Hearts, something very wrong is going on here. All five AfDs you closed are now open. They were closed before the statements above were added. These statements would have changed nothing, but somehow your closures have been circumvented. Something against process is going on. Dekkappai ( talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that this was an improper close. All the keep !votes are "Wait until it airs, it'll be notable then" which really doesn't hold water. There was some discussion on IRC that the closure was improper. It looks like it should've been deleted or at least relisted. (also, you might wanna remove the link to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! from your talk page notice) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, IMO it was a clear consensus for keeping the article [1]. There were 3 "delete" votes against 9 "keep". May I please ask you to reconsider your clousere? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I almost never do this, but really, no consensus? Would not another relist perhaps have been a better 'close'? Ged UK 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was about to clean up the DRV log when I noticed that you commented out the DRV for User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. You mention "relist" in your edit summary, [2] but I didn't see a closing statement. Just curious if I should archive the log for that day, or if you are still planning on doing something with it. I didn't want to remove the html that hid the discussion if you put it there on purpose, but I wasn't sure why it would be there. Thanks, IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Some users just don't get it, do they? Thanks for catching the vandalism (on my page) before I even saw it, that literally vanished in seconds. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? I request that you restore the article for the reason that there was no consensus to it being deleted. Inniverse ( talk) 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Inniverse ( talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am aware of the reasons why you have deleted this page from wikipedia prior to an ongoing debate as to whether the page should be kept, deleted or changed. I would like to put my argument forward:
1) This page is the ONLY page in wikipedia that includes a DETAILED and extremely helpful fleet index for a big corporate bus company. If you delete it you will be deleting the only one in existance. 2) Bus enfusiasts like myself who are interested in the bus scene in birmingham reguarly use that page for tracking down a particular type of bus, noting any changes in the fleet such as withdrawals and many other things. 3) I however agree with some of the comments on the debate page about the fact that in places it can be TOO COMPLICATED FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REGUARLY LOOK AT IT. So cutting bits out like the tables (with the bus fleet number on 1 side and on the other side of the table you have the registration plate) can go as I personally don't see the point in that! I have noticed that on that page you have boxes with the fleet numbers in and their current garage, this can be used instead - so you don't duplicate information! 4) I would also suggest that the number of references at the bottom is cut a little. 5) I would also cut the sections about the Leyland Lynx and MCW Metrobuses, as these take up space and are no longer within the fleet, also cutting the massive paragraph down in the reserve fleet. 6) Apart from that everything else is extremely helpful, I would just like to add that the main reason why I look at your page almost every day is to see if the fleet has changed. And this is the most reliable page for that sort of information, if this page is deleted then I'm not sure where to go as the fleet page on the NXWM website has not been updated in 2 years! 7) I am aware that it takes tons of effort to make changes to this page every so 1/2 days, as the fleet can change that reguarly, but believe me that effort won't go unrewarded as people like me will reguarly look at ypur page!
I thank you for reading this and hope that this gives you a better indication of where the page is from a bus enfusiasts perspective. Please take into consideration what I have said, and if so I hope to see this page still on wikipedia soon which will make me a very happy man!
Best Regards,
Andy, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.175.129 ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of anyone voting if you can decide by yourself to delete the article? You very much violated everything Wikipedia is about. You brazenly violated consensus. And you misunderstand Biographies of Living Persons policy. It says "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The justificaiton for the article was not that he was "MERELY in the news," but that he is famous for being in the news. And, do you see the "AND"?? Dodson is not a low-profile individual. If someone is in the news for a single event and he is notable then it's proper for their to be an article about him. Notability is all that's required to justify it. And go back and look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_only_for_one_event . It says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Do you see that it is taking it for granted that when a person is notable for a single event it is proper for him to have representation on Wikipedia? There is no policy on Wikipedia that says if a person is notable for a single event then he shouldn't have an article. Notability is all the justification needed. Will you restore the article? Rapidosity ( talk) 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This image was not an identical crop, it is actually slightly better than the one at Commons, can you userfy me a copy, or upload over the present Commons variant? Thanks.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 03:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz. Every person commenting said to delete the page. How is this no consensus? If I had prodded it instead, wouldn't it just be deleted? Consider WP:SILENCE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
All the closes mentioned here were technically proper per WP:RELIST. Yes "king of" could have used "admin's discretion" and deleted them but we shouldn't fault him for choosing not to exercise it. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There were actually two related articles for deletion there - also Mundo Overloadus. Should I resubmit the latter or can you delete it based on the existing disussion? JohnInDC ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I restored it. Edward ( talk) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, not sure I understand this one. There is an AfD which was "delete" but there was no formal notification on the article page. You closed the debate and deleted the talk page (but not the article) - which is how I found it, I was checking WPSong updates and nearly re-started the page. I suppose the deletion should be done correctly... You can respond on this page or mine, either way, no problems. I have no axe to grind in any event. Cheers. Richhoncho ( talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tony Koltz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello dear King of hearts.
I have noticed today that my informational article about FlippingBook brand was deleted. I did not find the reason but it seems to me that you have tagged it like a advertising?
Please can you tell me how to sort this issue out. This brand provides free software to the most of US educational organizations and people want to have information around it. It was a good idea to create an article here and develop it.
Please advise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishanoval ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your signature per WP:ACCESS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin ( talk • contribs) 15:06, August 20, 2010
I originally found it confusing when seeing it on AFD closes. The only thing that stands out is the phrase "king of" (king of what?). However, I disagree that it's inaccessible. If it is then WPs standard text size is also "inaccessible". By clicking the "king of" part it's only one click away from his talk page and contributions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, myself and the other person who replied to Capt Walden took his claim of "lists multiple secondary sources" to mean the references to the sources the characters come from (since Sherlock Holmes appears, an external Holmes timeline is used even though in Volume 1 it is clear that Holmes appearences are publication dates rather than by internal story dating.) As such those things have to go. Doesn't mean the page has to be deleted, but doesn't support the page and citations, either. His replies made it clear he was refering to the section that lists (but doesn't use as sources):
These 3 books cover a "story" each. Heroes and monsters covers the first mini-series, A Blazing World covers Vol 2 and Impossible Territories covers the original graphic novel "The Black Dossier". I'm sure when all three volumes of "Century" are released a four will be added. These books started out as posts by Jess Nevins (Librarian and Victorian Literature enthusis) to usenet comic book forums as "annotations"... his page-by-page, panel-by-panel guess of who every one was (including background characters and shops signs). People replied with their own guesses and contradictions which he added and he created a webpage. I was one of those people who made editions. The page became popular and was turned into the books. The books included revised and expanded versions of these annotations (I'm assuming better than just the original guesses), essays and interviews with the creators. Unfortunately, I've only ever once seen a copy of one of these in a comic shop and didn't have the money at the time and it was in plastic. They'd probably be a good secondary sources for this page, although I really feel they're a single source and not multiple sources. Unfortunately, they aren't being cited, they just exist as something mentioned on the page. I still think the real issue is the comic book timelines are synthetic OR. However, I accept you disagree. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 07:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi KoH! Im not sure you are actually watching the admin review you started. I have never interacted with you on Wikipedia, and I hope you realise therefore that there is absolutely nothing personal in my comment whatsoever. If you wish, I would be happy to provide more details that I did not consider necessary for the review page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you were one of the administrators on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests so I'm asking you.
I'm requesting that the rollback feature be applied to my account. I would like to revert vandalism faster, and maybe be able to try out Huggle. I have read over WP:ROLLBACK and understand that rollback is only for reverting obvious vandalistic edits, my own edits in my userspace, or edits by banned users. I realize I haven't been on Wikipedia for that long (only been here for 5 days), but I find myself reverting vandalism most of the time, and I think I understand what is vandalism and what isn't. So if you would please review my reverts, that would be most appreciated. But of course, if you believe I need some more experience with vandalism reverting, then that's 100% understandable. No worries, no problem.
Just take your time, as I can see you're a busy administrator at work. Thanks! — Xcalizorz ( talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you closed the AfD for Lists of cemeteries but didn't remove the afd tag from the article? I thought it was probably an oversight, but I didn't want to remove it if there's a reason why it's still there. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 03:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! This is Farjad. I wanted to ask you what was the criteria of deleting the List of schools in South Korea. Thanks! Farjad0322 ( talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) {{Asia topic|List of schools in}}
Dear King of Hearts,
Hello, thank you for the feedback. I did major source, filmography and career updates to the article and hope you got to see the latest version before your judgement.
You mentioned, "...recreate with proper sourcing and without the promotional tone." With all due respect, I could link you a few 'filmmakers' on Wikipedia who've done almost nothing outside of their student projects, and yet their articles are approved, posted, and use personal sites as sources, etc. And most were written with an obvious "promotional tone".
Could you please reinstate my relevant cinematography article? I did days of research, dozens of hours backing up notable credits, award recognition, linking actors' articles and other references to mine, etc. If you could, check out my updated article from this morning, 8/23 and please reconsider.
Thank you,
Dale Obert
Obertdp7(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I also appreciate your endorsement of my content contributions. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Antoine Dodson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are effectively going no consensus, which is how you started the closing statement then you are bound to endorse as BLP is that material deleted for BLP reasons (and this includes BLP1E) should not be restored without a clear consensus to do so. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning or you might want to clarify your thinking? Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed as much BLP stuff as I can without blanking it... Off2riorob ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What a pile of crap, you never should of replaced that rubbish, users are replacing all the content from the BLP. if you were unsure you should have left it for someone else. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why was it even at DRV? I think the userfication while the editor worked on the thing and while the subject's career evolved to notability was a tidy solution. As a matter of fact, I moved the thing to the userpage to avoid deletion and to allow the subject to become notable. I was not notified of the DRV discussion. Dloh cierekim 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time if it's an article concerning an athlete please categorize it under sports and games. Thanks Secret account 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Your claim that "Astro$01 presents a multi-pronged argument worth several "delete" !votes" is a little hard to accept. Most people in the discussion rejected the "notable" argument. The other arguments such as "other stuff exists" and "it is rated high importance in a wikiproject" are barely relevant. The list is based on OR and is used to push a POV. It cannot be addressed simply by slapping on an incomplete template.
Also, the AFD is 6 days old. Shouldn't the full 7 days pass before a "no consensus" closure? -- Dodo bird ( talk) 04:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, obvious to you but not me. was this a reference to the convention that no thread at WT RFA actually results in change? Ϣere SpielChequers 08:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the status of this deletion discussion. It has supposedly been re-listed, but there's no notice of this in the article. Deb ( talk) 07:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi King of Hearts, in closing the discussion for Articles for deletion/2010 Ecuador earthquake you said that the proposed notability guidelines for earthquake articles "have not gained widespread consensus". I have in the past tried to get editors who start articles on earthquakes of dubious notability to contribute to the discussion on WikiProject Earthquakes, but with little success. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might be able to raise the profile of this and get more editors involved to reach that 'widespread consensus'. Thanks, Mikenorton ( talk) 08:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:FieldsMedalFront.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Makeemlighter (
talk)
00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
|
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:FieldsMedalBack.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Makeemlighter (
talk)
00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Hi King of Hearts!
This is Screwball, I'm currently editing articles related to the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, 2010, and the Lee Whitnum article has re-caught my attention recently. I am interested in reviewing the deletion of the page, and since I am unsure how to handle this, I undid the removal of the page and started to edit it again.
I do not know the procedures, but I feel that this article is relevant and has room to grow. Since you are an administrator and you were involved in the discussion, I would like your help.
Thanks!!! :-)
-- Screwball23 talk 04:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, King of Hearts, and thanks for taking the time to close the recent Pink film nominations. On your doubts as to "consensus" on the award, there are citations to English texts in the article on the award. More sourcing-- both English and Japanese-- can certainly be added, and I will work on it to make it more clear that the award is indeed "notable", cite-able with reliable sourcing, etc. (Not to continue the arguments, but I would note that the Delete votes refused to acknowledge the sourcing and proofs of reliability continuously presented. I would hope simple refusal to budge from one's first !vote, in spite of contradictory evidence does not affect a "consensus" close.) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 19:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cousin_White_Paper:_Aching_Mature_Lewdness was appropriate. You appear to have treated the discussion simply as a vote count, without weighing the policy/guideline questions involved. In a situation like this, where there's no clearly expressed consensus after the initial listing, the closer should either relist the discussion or reach a conclusion by evaluating the arguments under applicable policies and guidelines. Please revise your action as indicated. If you do opt to weigh mthe arguments, please take my newest comments, recently added to the four companion AFDs, into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
King of Hearts, something very wrong is going on here. All five AfDs you closed are now open. They were closed before the statements above were added. These statements would have changed nothing, but somehow your closures have been circumvented. Something against process is going on. Dekkappai ( talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that this was an improper close. All the keep !votes are "Wait until it airs, it'll be notable then" which really doesn't hold water. There was some discussion on IRC that the closure was improper. It looks like it should've been deleted or at least relisted. (also, you might wanna remove the link to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! from your talk page notice) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, IMO it was a clear consensus for keeping the article [1]. There were 3 "delete" votes against 9 "keep". May I please ask you to reconsider your clousere? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I almost never do this, but really, no consensus? Would not another relist perhaps have been a better 'close'? Ged UK 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was about to clean up the DRV log when I noticed that you commented out the DRV for User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. You mention "relist" in your edit summary, [2] but I didn't see a closing statement. Just curious if I should archive the log for that day, or if you are still planning on doing something with it. I didn't want to remove the html that hid the discussion if you put it there on purpose, but I wasn't sure why it would be there. Thanks, IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Some users just don't get it, do they? Thanks for catching the vandalism (on my page) before I even saw it, that literally vanished in seconds. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? I request that you restore the article for the reason that there was no consensus to it being deleted. Inniverse ( talk) 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Inniverse ( talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am aware of the reasons why you have deleted this page from wikipedia prior to an ongoing debate as to whether the page should be kept, deleted or changed. I would like to put my argument forward:
1) This page is the ONLY page in wikipedia that includes a DETAILED and extremely helpful fleet index for a big corporate bus company. If you delete it you will be deleting the only one in existance. 2) Bus enfusiasts like myself who are interested in the bus scene in birmingham reguarly use that page for tracking down a particular type of bus, noting any changes in the fleet such as withdrawals and many other things. 3) I however agree with some of the comments on the debate page about the fact that in places it can be TOO COMPLICATED FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REGUARLY LOOK AT IT. So cutting bits out like the tables (with the bus fleet number on 1 side and on the other side of the table you have the registration plate) can go as I personally don't see the point in that! I have noticed that on that page you have boxes with the fleet numbers in and their current garage, this can be used instead - so you don't duplicate information! 4) I would also suggest that the number of references at the bottom is cut a little. 5) I would also cut the sections about the Leyland Lynx and MCW Metrobuses, as these take up space and are no longer within the fleet, also cutting the massive paragraph down in the reserve fleet. 6) Apart from that everything else is extremely helpful, I would just like to add that the main reason why I look at your page almost every day is to see if the fleet has changed. And this is the most reliable page for that sort of information, if this page is deleted then I'm not sure where to go as the fleet page on the NXWM website has not been updated in 2 years! 7) I am aware that it takes tons of effort to make changes to this page every so 1/2 days, as the fleet can change that reguarly, but believe me that effort won't go unrewarded as people like me will reguarly look at ypur page!
I thank you for reading this and hope that this gives you a better indication of where the page is from a bus enfusiasts perspective. Please take into consideration what I have said, and if so I hope to see this page still on wikipedia soon which will make me a very happy man!
Best Regards,
Andy, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.175.129 ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of anyone voting if you can decide by yourself to delete the article? You very much violated everything Wikipedia is about. You brazenly violated consensus. And you misunderstand Biographies of Living Persons policy. It says "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The justificaiton for the article was not that he was "MERELY in the news," but that he is famous for being in the news. And, do you see the "AND"?? Dodson is not a low-profile individual. If someone is in the news for a single event and he is notable then it's proper for their to be an article about him. Notability is all that's required to justify it. And go back and look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_only_for_one_event . It says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Do you see that it is taking it for granted that when a person is notable for a single event it is proper for him to have representation on Wikipedia? There is no policy on Wikipedia that says if a person is notable for a single event then he shouldn't have an article. Notability is all the justification needed. Will you restore the article? Rapidosity ( talk) 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This image was not an identical crop, it is actually slightly better than the one at Commons, can you userfy me a copy, or upload over the present Commons variant? Thanks.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 03:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz. Every person commenting said to delete the page. How is this no consensus? If I had prodded it instead, wouldn't it just be deleted? Consider WP:SILENCE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
All the closes mentioned here were technically proper per WP:RELIST. Yes "king of" could have used "admin's discretion" and deleted them but we shouldn't fault him for choosing not to exercise it. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There were actually two related articles for deletion there - also Mundo Overloadus. Should I resubmit the latter or can you delete it based on the existing disussion? JohnInDC ( talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I restored it. Edward ( talk) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, not sure I understand this one. There is an AfD which was "delete" but there was no formal notification on the article page. You closed the debate and deleted the talk page (but not the article) - which is how I found it, I was checking WPSong updates and nearly re-started the page. I suppose the deletion should be done correctly... You can respond on this page or mine, either way, no problems. I have no axe to grind in any event. Cheers. Richhoncho ( talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tony Koltz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello dear King of hearts.
I have noticed today that my informational article about FlippingBook brand was deleted. I did not find the reason but it seems to me that you have tagged it like a advertising?
Please can you tell me how to sort this issue out. This brand provides free software to the most of US educational organizations and people want to have information around it. It was a good idea to create an article here and develop it.
Please advise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishanoval ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your signature per WP:ACCESS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin ( talk • contribs) 15:06, August 20, 2010
I originally found it confusing when seeing it on AFD closes. The only thing that stands out is the phrase "king of" (king of what?). However, I disagree that it's inaccessible. If it is then WPs standard text size is also "inaccessible". By clicking the "king of" part it's only one click away from his talk page and contributions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, myself and the other person who replied to Capt Walden took his claim of "lists multiple secondary sources" to mean the references to the sources the characters come from (since Sherlock Holmes appears, an external Holmes timeline is used even though in Volume 1 it is clear that Holmes appearences are publication dates rather than by internal story dating.) As such those things have to go. Doesn't mean the page has to be deleted, but doesn't support the page and citations, either. His replies made it clear he was refering to the section that lists (but doesn't use as sources):
These 3 books cover a "story" each. Heroes and monsters covers the first mini-series, A Blazing World covers Vol 2 and Impossible Territories covers the original graphic novel "The Black Dossier". I'm sure when all three volumes of "Century" are released a four will be added. These books started out as posts by Jess Nevins (Librarian and Victorian Literature enthusis) to usenet comic book forums as "annotations"... his page-by-page, panel-by-panel guess of who every one was (including background characters and shops signs). People replied with their own guesses and contradictions which he added and he created a webpage. I was one of those people who made editions. The page became popular and was turned into the books. The books included revised and expanded versions of these annotations (I'm assuming better than just the original guesses), essays and interviews with the creators. Unfortunately, I've only ever once seen a copy of one of these in a comic shop and didn't have the money at the time and it was in plastic. They'd probably be a good secondary sources for this page, although I really feel they're a single source and not multiple sources. Unfortunately, they aren't being cited, they just exist as something mentioned on the page. I still think the real issue is the comic book timelines are synthetic OR. However, I accept you disagree. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 07:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi KoH! Im not sure you are actually watching the admin review you started. I have never interacted with you on Wikipedia, and I hope you realise therefore that there is absolutely nothing personal in my comment whatsoever. If you wish, I would be happy to provide more details that I did not consider necessary for the review page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you were one of the administrators on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests so I'm asking you.
I'm requesting that the rollback feature be applied to my account. I would like to revert vandalism faster, and maybe be able to try out Huggle. I have read over WP:ROLLBACK and understand that rollback is only for reverting obvious vandalistic edits, my own edits in my userspace, or edits by banned users. I realize I haven't been on Wikipedia for that long (only been here for 5 days), but I find myself reverting vandalism most of the time, and I think I understand what is vandalism and what isn't. So if you would please review my reverts, that would be most appreciated. But of course, if you believe I need some more experience with vandalism reverting, then that's 100% understandable. No worries, no problem.
Just take your time, as I can see you're a busy administrator at work. Thanks! — Xcalizorz ( talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you closed the AfD for Lists of cemeteries but didn't remove the afd tag from the article? I thought it was probably an oversight, but I didn't want to remove it if there's a reason why it's still there. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 03:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! This is Farjad. I wanted to ask you what was the criteria of deleting the List of schools in South Korea. Thanks! Farjad0322 ( talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) {{Asia topic|List of schools in}}
Dear King of Hearts,
Hello, thank you for the feedback. I did major source, filmography and career updates to the article and hope you got to see the latest version before your judgement.
You mentioned, "...recreate with proper sourcing and without the promotional tone." With all due respect, I could link you a few 'filmmakers' on Wikipedia who've done almost nothing outside of their student projects, and yet their articles are approved, posted, and use personal sites as sources, etc. And most were written with an obvious "promotional tone".
Could you please reinstate my relevant cinematography article? I did days of research, dozens of hours backing up notable credits, award recognition, linking actors' articles and other references to mine, etc. If you could, check out my updated article from this morning, 8/23 and please reconsider.
Thank you,
Dale Obert
Obertdp7(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I also appreciate your endorsement of my content contributions. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Antoine Dodson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are effectively going no consensus, which is how you started the closing statement then you are bound to endorse as BLP is that material deleted for BLP reasons (and this includes BLP1E) should not be restored without a clear consensus to do so. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning or you might want to clarify your thinking? Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed as much BLP stuff as I can without blanking it... Off2riorob ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What a pile of crap, you never should of replaced that rubbish, users are replacing all the content from the BLP. if you were unsure you should have left it for someone else. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why was it even at DRV? I think the userfication while the editor worked on the thing and while the subject's career evolved to notability was a tidy solution. As a matter of fact, I moved the thing to the userpage to avoid deletion and to allow the subject to become notable. I was not notified of the DRV discussion. Dloh cierekim 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time if it's an article concerning an athlete please categorize it under sports and games. Thanks Secret account 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Your claim that "Astro$01 presents a multi-pronged argument worth several "delete" !votes" is a little hard to accept. Most people in the discussion rejected the "notable" argument. The other arguments such as "other stuff exists" and "it is rated high importance in a wikiproject" are barely relevant. The list is based on OR and is used to push a POV. It cannot be addressed simply by slapping on an incomplete template.
Also, the AFD is 6 days old. Shouldn't the full 7 days pass before a "no consensus" closure? -- Dodo bird ( talk) 04:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, obvious to you but not me. was this a reference to the convention that no thread at WT RFA actually results in change? Ϣere SpielChequers 08:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the status of this deletion discussion. It has supposedly been re-listed, but there's no notice of this in the article. Deb ( talk) 07:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi King of Hearts, in closing the discussion for Articles for deletion/2010 Ecuador earthquake you said that the proposed notability guidelines for earthquake articles "have not gained widespread consensus". I have in the past tried to get editors who start articles on earthquakes of dubious notability to contribute to the discussion on WikiProject Earthquakes, but with little success. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might be able to raise the profile of this and get more editors involved to reach that 'widespread consensus'. Thanks, Mikenorton ( talk) 08:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:FieldsMedalFront.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Makeemlighter (
talk)
00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
|
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:FieldsMedalBack.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Makeemlighter (
talk)
00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
|