![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hi. I see that there was a potential copyright infringement in one section of my draft article. In order that I can re-work it to avoid the infringement, please can you restore it in a place where I can rework it? Thanks Samuel Neaman Institute draft Golan789 ( talk) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
Regent Street you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Regent Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on David Morris (Conservative politician). I was doing a mass-rollback of unconstructive edits from someone trying to purge the DM. I thought I did only the ref-to-CN removals, but I apparently missed one. Primefac ( talk) 17:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
is a problem for this very reason, but so is reverting the source to the Mail back in! If the source can't be replaced quickly, get rid of the information per
WP:BLP if you possibly can. There has been a lot of talk both on and off-wiki of removing citations to the Daily Mail where appropriate, but my
personal log of BLPs citing the Mail is staying pretty static. In the case of
David Morris, the expenses scandal is picked up by other sources, so we can use that, but the follow-on article appears to be only in the Mail and of too specific interest to really be relevant, in my view. While MPs are all high-profile individuals in the public eye, we should take extra care not to turn their articles into
things like this. The Mail is far from the only offender - we still have 100+ BLPs that cite The Sun - and I personally think a total ban was a step too far, but getting it out of BLPs can only be a good thing.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enemies of the People, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that over 1,000 people complained when the Daily Mail called three High Court judges " enemies of the people"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enemies of the People. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Enemies of the People), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 809 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Marshlink Line you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 07:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Please get familiar with policies before reverting. The WP:QUOTENAME guideline justifies my edit. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, when you've finished battling idiots, any chance you could create an article on the Rhondda by-pass? here. There's some notable bridges built too which are missing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this now pass muster? We hope ( talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove my question as spam? I just asked for help with the wizard. 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Just going to point out that having sources is not a valid reason for declining an A7, especially when one is merely an acknowledgement and the other is basically social media puff. Working on two web comics and being an intern for iTunes does not constitute a claim of significance; that constitutes a job. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sourcesshould be added to A7, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to seek consensus on at WT:CSD, and your rationale above may be a perfectly solid one for supporting it. But currently, having sources with no credible claim of significance still qualifies, in the same manner that making a credible claim of significance with no sources is still disqualifying. Having had this discussion with four different editors may be an indication that your current interpretation of policy is out of line what guidance policy actually gives. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie--I need a small favor. As a classroom demo, I moved this draft into mainspace in the wrong way, by copying and pasting. Can you please delete it, saying "test" edit or "gross negligence and incompetence? Ta! Dr Aaij ( talk) 16:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-- Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you so much for your quick help, To The Benefit Of Our Beautiful Project. Dr Aaij ( talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for the support, I was beginning to wonder if I was actually a fuckwit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, it's a... |
... Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink ( talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
The article
Marshlink Line you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Marshlink Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 23:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Liverpool Street station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Liverpool Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Esquivalience --
Esquivalience (
talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations, it's a... |
... Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink ( talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
I have to say I was surprised. I have begun a discussion at talk:Enemies of the People#Aftermath, let's debate it there. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, I hope you can point me to the instructions on the procedure for declining a speedy deletion. I have not been able to find it. I've been cautiously getting involved with various admin tasks since my RFA, this is the first time I have made a decision to refuse a speedy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-meta}}
derived tag. Normally, I will suggest further action in the edit summary eg: "decline A7, does not apply to buildings / books / arcade games / public parks etc", "decline A7, one source, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, has a claim to win an award, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, notability clearly established" or (when annoyed) "decline A7, did you actually search for sources?" (warning, this last one should not be used unless you are planning to 5x expand the article and send it to DYK ;-D)
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
South Circular Road, London you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:South Circular Road, London for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Grondemar --
Grondemar (
talk) 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of this page was proposed by another admin on the grounds of notability, which I then contested on grounds of the fact that I was still editing the page and adding sources, plus the evidence that I had created two previous Burkinabé musician articles which survived the patrol and demonstrated my confidence that I was attempting to make notable musician pages that meet criteria. Now that it has been deleted for this other apparent reason of unambiguous advertising/promoting, it is unknown if my contestation was seen, let alone replied to. I would like to request to have back the original source code of the page revision which you deleted, firstly so that I can continue to improve and build it as I was doing so, so that it meets criteria, and additionally on the grounds that the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion was not the same reason that you deleted the page for, meaning any contestation I made must not have been regarded by you, the deleting admin; however, correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, nomination for speedy deletion allows any admin to delete an article at their discretion. However, there must be a reason for an article to be nominated, a reason which must be stated beforehand and which legitimises the speedy deletion to take place on the grounds of that reason. The reason you deleted it for was not that for which it was nominated, making the deletion seem to have been unwarranted and arbitrary. I would, therefore, also like clarification on how the revision was unambiguously advertising and promoting, instead of, as was intended, being ensured to have notable sources and relationships to make it qualify for the criteria it was initially reported for. Thank you. SpikeballUnion ( talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I had my doubts about you as an admin before (as you know), and your labeling of my block of Singora as "questionable" only reinforces this (I was aware of your opinion on the Cassianto block, where you clearly aren't objective and who you should never have unblocked in the past). Furthermore, try to be honest when you write ANI reports in the future. " I have previously banged heads with Fram when he felt that telling another editor to "fuck off" was acceptable" is not true, you have banged heads about that comment because you apparently didn't know the difference between a personal attack and an uncivil comment. Fuck off is an uncivil comment, what Signora wrote or what Cassianto reinserted were personal attacks. Please (re)familiarize yourself with our personal attacks policy and definitions, and don't start pointless ANI sections which will only backfire in the end. 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinkaXXX and the related discussion on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MinkaXXX ... this is probably more appropriate for the AVEN forums, but I just despair that somebody really thinks the subject of the soon-to-be obliterated photos are actually attractive, and not just severely unhealthy and borderline self-abusive. Sure, I think some women are really nice looking ( exhibit A), ( exhibit B), and I don't mean that in a mysoginistic / disparaging way at all, they just present themselves well in public, and the sort of views and ideals they have strengthens that. Anyway, rant off, pages speedied. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the speedy delete tag for this article, the askart source isn't a reliable source, so I removed it. There are no news articles, no mentions in books, nothing in JSTOR, etc. The only sources I am finding on the internet are sales sites and genealogy sites. This isn't even a close call.
Your reason for removing the speedy delete tag is that "world famous in Belgium", may have a source - where does it say that? What does world famous in Belgium mean?
By the way, I am a member of the Women's artists wikiproject and have saved, created, and improved a lot of articles about women artists.— CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
They've already contested a PROD and a CSD on their articles, and seem very determined to post their articles on here. I think their articles are pretty bad, to be honest - very promotional, taking for granted that it's some kind of genius idea, lots of details about research methodology. The CREATE Program article is really just a copy of this. I'll think about it in a bit when I get the chance. Let me know what you think. Blythwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a mistake. Where is the page? latest version before deleting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagw ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Today, I added an entry for Tibbo, an international group of companies for IoT hardware and software solutions.
I do not really understand why did you mark it as a speedy deletion nomination without even contrast it.
Just trying to help a bit doing the Wikipedia a better place with wider information, and at the same time improve my Wikipedia editing skills. But with decisions like this, one prefers to go and work in other more productive stuff.
Best Regards.
-- Newtomi ( talk) 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yo dawg you deleted my page about Jacob Auge. This information is true. I know Jacob and his family and have gather these resources through local libraries. So please check your facts next.
Thanks, Angry Wiki lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDaddyLewis ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this page was speedily deleted but I think it has grounds to be re-instated. I can see it was deleted in the past however I think it would benefit from being resurrected. What is the means by which I can revert this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law.archive ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The author changed the name to create the page. Xx236 ( talk) 12:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
At Marshlink Line. Better than the typical lack of reaction. But maybe comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Marshlink_Line, too. Happy to do an RM discussion if opinions vary. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please restore the "The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth" article. It does not violate copyrighted material as everything in the page is from the official website at thelincolncenter.com Can you please restore it. Thank you. Gtfree ( talk) 19:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)gtfree
I don't understand the jargon that you're using. I'm just trying to create a Wikipedia page for the non-profit organization that I lead. Please tell me what specifically needs to be done to reconcile the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That's the thing. They are my words. Can you restore the draft so that I can change my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and for the links for me to get up to speed on the rules. I'm new at this and still learning. Thanks for your patience. Gtfree ( talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
who are you, whats your problem with my page, its none of your business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyleewhyte ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well my friend it is not something out of The Sun, a tabloid who I am not on great terms with so I do not appreciate the comparison. Do you work for wikipedia, if not why are you meddling in other peoples lives? No one ever has or ever will put up that I am a sex offender as I have never committed any sex crimes, so I have no worries about that. I am proud of my son and tried for a baby for 18 years therefore I am entitled to be as proud of my child as I want. I haven't posted his picture or address have I now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.51.49 ( talk)
You recently deleted this page, and now a new user created it with a speedy tag already in the body. Was it a different user who initially created it? If so, this new one - ElJuan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a sock. Home Lander ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
we are not a garage band, December screams embers` music is going to be on iTunes and Pandora and satellite radio and everything soon after the end of this month, I had every right to post about the status of my band, what business is it of yours to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdsembers ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I am just wondering why you decided to delete my Wikipedia page. It had information about an Australian YouTuber called "Riley's Tech Tip's". If you could please restore it because it gave valuable information about a small YouTuber and it is not fake advertising and it is based on a real person. I am the person it is based on and I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia page. So it is all true and not made up. If you could please restore it that would be wonderful.
Thanks in advance. Riley Webb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21WEBBri ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That editor who was upset about content being deleted & cited the Hillary Clinton "70% score"?... they've apparently been trying to get something to do with that content into WP since 2009... Shearonink ( talk) 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hi. I see that there was a potential copyright infringement in one section of my draft article. In order that I can re-work it to avoid the infringement, please can you restore it in a place where I can rework it? Thanks Samuel Neaman Institute draft Golan789 ( talk) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
Regent Street you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Regent Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kees08 --
Kees08 (
talk) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on David Morris (Conservative politician). I was doing a mass-rollback of unconstructive edits from someone trying to purge the DM. I thought I did only the ref-to-CN removals, but I apparently missed one. Primefac ( talk) 17:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
is a problem for this very reason, but so is reverting the source to the Mail back in! If the source can't be replaced quickly, get rid of the information per
WP:BLP if you possibly can. There has been a lot of talk both on and off-wiki of removing citations to the Daily Mail where appropriate, but my
personal log of BLPs citing the Mail is staying pretty static. In the case of
David Morris, the expenses scandal is picked up by other sources, so we can use that, but the follow-on article appears to be only in the Mail and of too specific interest to really be relevant, in my view. While MPs are all high-profile individuals in the public eye, we should take extra care not to turn their articles into
things like this. The Mail is far from the only offender - we still have 100+ BLPs that cite The Sun - and I personally think a total ban was a step too far, but getting it out of BLPs can only be a good thing.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enemies of the People, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that over 1,000 people complained when the Daily Mail called three High Court judges " enemies of the people"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enemies of the People. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Enemies of the People), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 809 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Marshlink Line you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 07:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Please get familiar with policies before reverting. The WP:QUOTENAME guideline justifies my edit. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, when you've finished battling idiots, any chance you could create an article on the Rhondda by-pass? here. There's some notable bridges built too which are missing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this now pass muster? We hope ( talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove my question as spam? I just asked for help with the wizard. 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Just going to point out that having sources is not a valid reason for declining an A7, especially when one is merely an acknowledgement and the other is basically social media puff. Working on two web comics and being an intern for iTunes does not constitute a claim of significance; that constitutes a job. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sourcesshould be added to A7, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to seek consensus on at WT:CSD, and your rationale above may be a perfectly solid one for supporting it. But currently, having sources with no credible claim of significance still qualifies, in the same manner that making a credible claim of significance with no sources is still disqualifying. Having had this discussion with four different editors may be an indication that your current interpretation of policy is out of line what guidance policy actually gives. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie--I need a small favor. As a classroom demo, I moved this draft into mainspace in the wrong way, by copying and pasting. Can you please delete it, saying "test" edit or "gross negligence and incompetence? Ta! Dr Aaij ( talk) 16:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-- Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you so much for your quick help, To The Benefit Of Our Beautiful Project. Dr Aaij ( talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for the support, I was beginning to wonder if I was actually a fuckwit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, it's a... |
... Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink ( talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
The article
Marshlink Line you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Marshlink Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 23:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Liverpool Street station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Liverpool Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Esquivalience --
Esquivalience (
talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations, it's a... |
... Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink ( talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
I have to say I was surprised. I have begun a discussion at talk:Enemies of the People#Aftermath, let's debate it there. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, I hope you can point me to the instructions on the procedure for declining a speedy deletion. I have not been able to find it. I've been cautiously getting involved with various admin tasks since my RFA, this is the first time I have made a decision to refuse a speedy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-meta}}
derived tag. Normally, I will suggest further action in the edit summary eg: "decline A7, does not apply to buildings / books / arcade games / public parks etc", "decline A7, one source, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, has a claim to win an award, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, notability clearly established" or (when annoyed) "decline A7, did you actually search for sources?" (warning, this last one should not be used unless you are planning to 5x expand the article and send it to DYK ;-D)
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
South Circular Road, London you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:South Circular Road, London for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Grondemar --
Grondemar (
talk) 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of this page was proposed by another admin on the grounds of notability, which I then contested on grounds of the fact that I was still editing the page and adding sources, plus the evidence that I had created two previous Burkinabé musician articles which survived the patrol and demonstrated my confidence that I was attempting to make notable musician pages that meet criteria. Now that it has been deleted for this other apparent reason of unambiguous advertising/promoting, it is unknown if my contestation was seen, let alone replied to. I would like to request to have back the original source code of the page revision which you deleted, firstly so that I can continue to improve and build it as I was doing so, so that it meets criteria, and additionally on the grounds that the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion was not the same reason that you deleted the page for, meaning any contestation I made must not have been regarded by you, the deleting admin; however, correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, nomination for speedy deletion allows any admin to delete an article at their discretion. However, there must be a reason for an article to be nominated, a reason which must be stated beforehand and which legitimises the speedy deletion to take place on the grounds of that reason. The reason you deleted it for was not that for which it was nominated, making the deletion seem to have been unwarranted and arbitrary. I would, therefore, also like clarification on how the revision was unambiguously advertising and promoting, instead of, as was intended, being ensured to have notable sources and relationships to make it qualify for the criteria it was initially reported for. Thank you. SpikeballUnion ( talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I had my doubts about you as an admin before (as you know), and your labeling of my block of Singora as "questionable" only reinforces this (I was aware of your opinion on the Cassianto block, where you clearly aren't objective and who you should never have unblocked in the past). Furthermore, try to be honest when you write ANI reports in the future. " I have previously banged heads with Fram when he felt that telling another editor to "fuck off" was acceptable" is not true, you have banged heads about that comment because you apparently didn't know the difference between a personal attack and an uncivil comment. Fuck off is an uncivil comment, what Signora wrote or what Cassianto reinserted were personal attacks. Please (re)familiarize yourself with our personal attacks policy and definitions, and don't start pointless ANI sections which will only backfire in the end. 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinkaXXX and the related discussion on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MinkaXXX ... this is probably more appropriate for the AVEN forums, but I just despair that somebody really thinks the subject of the soon-to-be obliterated photos are actually attractive, and not just severely unhealthy and borderline self-abusive. Sure, I think some women are really nice looking ( exhibit A), ( exhibit B), and I don't mean that in a mysoginistic / disparaging way at all, they just present themselves well in public, and the sort of views and ideals they have strengthens that. Anyway, rant off, pages speedied. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the speedy delete tag for this article, the askart source isn't a reliable source, so I removed it. There are no news articles, no mentions in books, nothing in JSTOR, etc. The only sources I am finding on the internet are sales sites and genealogy sites. This isn't even a close call.
Your reason for removing the speedy delete tag is that "world famous in Belgium", may have a source - where does it say that? What does world famous in Belgium mean?
By the way, I am a member of the Women's artists wikiproject and have saved, created, and improved a lot of articles about women artists.— CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
They've already contested a PROD and a CSD on their articles, and seem very determined to post their articles on here. I think their articles are pretty bad, to be honest - very promotional, taking for granted that it's some kind of genius idea, lots of details about research methodology. The CREATE Program article is really just a copy of this. I'll think about it in a bit when I get the chance. Let me know what you think. Blythwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a mistake. Where is the page? latest version before deleting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagw ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Today, I added an entry for Tibbo, an international group of companies for IoT hardware and software solutions.
I do not really understand why did you mark it as a speedy deletion nomination without even contrast it.
Just trying to help a bit doing the Wikipedia a better place with wider information, and at the same time improve my Wikipedia editing skills. But with decisions like this, one prefers to go and work in other more productive stuff.
Best Regards.
-- Newtomi ( talk) 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yo dawg you deleted my page about Jacob Auge. This information is true. I know Jacob and his family and have gather these resources through local libraries. So please check your facts next.
Thanks, Angry Wiki lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDaddyLewis ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this page was speedily deleted but I think it has grounds to be re-instated. I can see it was deleted in the past however I think it would benefit from being resurrected. What is the means by which I can revert this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law.archive ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The author changed the name to create the page. Xx236 ( talk) 12:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
At Marshlink Line. Better than the typical lack of reaction. But maybe comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Marshlink_Line, too. Happy to do an RM discussion if opinions vary. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please restore the "The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth" article. It does not violate copyrighted material as everything in the page is from the official website at thelincolncenter.com Can you please restore it. Thank you. Gtfree ( talk) 19:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)gtfree
I don't understand the jargon that you're using. I'm just trying to create a Wikipedia page for the non-profit organization that I lead. Please tell me what specifically needs to be done to reconcile the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That's the thing. They are my words. Can you restore the draft so that I can change my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and for the links for me to get up to speed on the rules. I'm new at this and still learning. Thanks for your patience. Gtfree ( talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
who are you, whats your problem with my page, its none of your business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyleewhyte ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well my friend it is not something out of The Sun, a tabloid who I am not on great terms with so I do not appreciate the comparison. Do you work for wikipedia, if not why are you meddling in other peoples lives? No one ever has or ever will put up that I am a sex offender as I have never committed any sex crimes, so I have no worries about that. I am proud of my son and tried for a baby for 18 years therefore I am entitled to be as proud of my child as I want. I haven't posted his picture or address have I now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.51.49 ( talk)
You recently deleted this page, and now a new user created it with a speedy tag already in the body. Was it a different user who initially created it? If so, this new one - ElJuan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a sock. Home Lander ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
we are not a garage band, December screams embers` music is going to be on iTunes and Pandora and satellite radio and everything soon after the end of this month, I had every right to post about the status of my band, what business is it of yours to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdsembers ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I am just wondering why you decided to delete my Wikipedia page. It had information about an Australian YouTuber called "Riley's Tech Tip's". If you could please restore it because it gave valuable information about a small YouTuber and it is not fake advertising and it is based on a real person. I am the person it is based on and I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia page. So it is all true and not made up. If you could please restore it that would be wonderful.
Thanks in advance. Riley Webb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21WEBBri ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That editor who was upset about content being deleted & cited the Hillary Clinton "70% score"?... they've apparently been trying to get something to do with that content into WP since 2009... Shearonink ( talk) 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)