This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 40
Hey, Daniel. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 41
The file File:DarrenLehmann.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Poor quality file that is orphaned and would have no obvious value in transferring to Commons
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Salavat (
talk) 07:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 42
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 43
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 44 SMB9 9thx my edits! 05:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Six years! |
---|
on Beethoven's assumed birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 45
Hi you deleted Surridge Sports as per an AFD is it possible that the references can be saved and sent to me so I can add to Stuart Surridge page. Thanks Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 15:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel...Hi. I saw you deleted the Maveryx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There was an open discussion about this. I was modifing the article to meet the requests. Indeed, yesterday I added some accademic thesis to the article's references and a couple of days before I also added to the related talk page a statement to fix the Conflict of Interest issue. I was still working on it following the tips that HouseOfChange and Rosguill gave me. You deleted the article even before somebody could reply to my last changes and messages. Can you help me to undestand what happened?-- Megaride ( talk) 15:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.So, if you could demonstrate that those theses have been highly cited (at a minimum dozens, ideally hundreds of citations), they would be considered reliable. Based on Google Scholar's records, the first thesis has been cited twice, and the second has never been cited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel - not sure if this is an ok-method to discuss page deletion. I am new to wiki editing, trying to find my way around. Can you elaborate on the deletion of Captain Rivera's page? It included multiple external articles, which I thought was wiki's main standard for general notoriety. Also, the nomination was not specific about why it should be deleted, except a seemingly subjective objection to the idea Captain Rivera deserved notoriety. Since Captain Rivera has a school and a park named after him, it seemed the notoriety is beyond dispute. I already made these comments in the deletion discussion, wanting you to clarify on the policy, since it seemed to me to say that if consensus for deletion is not achieved, then the page will remain. The deletion discussion included 2 objections, so there was no consensus to delete. Combined with questions about how the policy for general notoriety is being applied, since this wiki has multiple external sources (LATimes, NY Times, and NY Daily), in addition to military overviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgeels ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel - I can accept the outcome. Captain Manuel Rivera, USMC pilot died on the 5th day of an offensive air-campaign operation during a training mission. He was in a combat theater, preparing for his inevitable combat mission in an operation that lasted only 42 days, and he died getting ready to go into the middle of the fight right around the corner. Captain Rivera was going first into battle, he was a successful pilot who had tons of training experience at an extremely high-risk profession, and he died the way lots of military people die: taking on tasks that are inherently dangerous. Gathered here to weigh in on whether or not Captain Rivera DESERVES a page of entry in limitless digital space, because ALL he did was the above, we have 7 mystery identities: Lettler, Mztourist, Bushranger, Captain Raju, Clarityfiend, Peacemaker67, Intothatdarkness. I can remember when the public library or an expensive private encyclopedia was the only way for people without a lot of money to explore the world, other than joining the military, or some other risky occupation. I hope this comment is a small reminder that there are a lot of "we the people" that rely on you to put your best foot forward in your leadership activities. Good luck and Best Regards, Klgeels ( talk) 21:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Why in this discussion did you opt for redirect rather than delete? The end result was 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 1 merge and 3 mostly meaningless comments. The case for deletion was better argued and, aside from the editor who opted for redirect, none of the others bothered to argue their case. The one who said merge is, in fact, known for just throwing merges or redirects (anything but delete) around deletion discussions without taking the time to look at the context and properly analyze what is the best course of action. It was totally unreasonable for you to summarily ignore the case for deletion after I had painstakingly argued it and after the discussion had already been dragged on for an unreasonable amount time. I beg you reconsider your decision. Avilich ( talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Out of curiosity, why have you relisted several AfDs with clear consensus? Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen Hancher. 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. Cheers, Ovinus ( talk) 05:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Per your closing comments, could you please restore and redirect to Haslar such that I can merge some content to there and other related articles. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi. Can you make a request to review/close an AFD currently under discussion or do you have to wait until decision is made? I'm also considering review of one recently closed. Can you request review of more than one or will doing so cause one to prejudice the other? Thanks.
HistoricalAccountings ( talk) 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel. I don't see a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng and I was planning to support retention. I previously supported retention in 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Chiu Yeng where an admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5. Would you reopen and relist the AfD? From my searches for sources, the subject has received more recent coverage such as this profile in China Daily Hong Kong Edition in 2018. Combined with this 2016 article in the South China Morning Post and this 2017 article in Ming Pao, there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel! Unfortunately, I was unable to contribute to " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crest Capital" before it was closed; considering that it is a soft delete and in the light of the possibly credible dead ref(s) on the article and these recent coverages— 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5—I am hoping that you could reopen it for me to contribute and clean-up the article. There are also some old mentions— 1 and 2—too. Thank you. 129.205.124.46 ( talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 40
Hey, Daniel. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 41
The file File:DarrenLehmann.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Poor quality file that is orphaned and would have no obvious value in transferring to Commons
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Salavat (
talk) 07:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 42
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 43
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 44 SMB9 9thx my edits! 05:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Six years! |
---|
on Beethoven's assumed birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 45
Hi you deleted Surridge Sports as per an AFD is it possible that the references can be saved and sent to me so I can add to Stuart Surridge page. Thanks Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 15:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel...Hi. I saw you deleted the Maveryx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There was an open discussion about this. I was modifing the article to meet the requests. Indeed, yesterday I added some accademic thesis to the article's references and a couple of days before I also added to the related talk page a statement to fix the Conflict of Interest issue. I was still working on it following the tips that HouseOfChange and Rosguill gave me. You deleted the article even before somebody could reply to my last changes and messages. Can you help me to undestand what happened?-- Megaride ( talk) 15:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.So, if you could demonstrate that those theses have been highly cited (at a minimum dozens, ideally hundreds of citations), they would be considered reliable. Based on Google Scholar's records, the first thesis has been cited twice, and the second has never been cited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel - not sure if this is an ok-method to discuss page deletion. I am new to wiki editing, trying to find my way around. Can you elaborate on the deletion of Captain Rivera's page? It included multiple external articles, which I thought was wiki's main standard for general notoriety. Also, the nomination was not specific about why it should be deleted, except a seemingly subjective objection to the idea Captain Rivera deserved notoriety. Since Captain Rivera has a school and a park named after him, it seemed the notoriety is beyond dispute. I already made these comments in the deletion discussion, wanting you to clarify on the policy, since it seemed to me to say that if consensus for deletion is not achieved, then the page will remain. The deletion discussion included 2 objections, so there was no consensus to delete. Combined with questions about how the policy for general notoriety is being applied, since this wiki has multiple external sources (LATimes, NY Times, and NY Daily), in addition to military overviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgeels ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel - I can accept the outcome. Captain Manuel Rivera, USMC pilot died on the 5th day of an offensive air-campaign operation during a training mission. He was in a combat theater, preparing for his inevitable combat mission in an operation that lasted only 42 days, and he died getting ready to go into the middle of the fight right around the corner. Captain Rivera was going first into battle, he was a successful pilot who had tons of training experience at an extremely high-risk profession, and he died the way lots of military people die: taking on tasks that are inherently dangerous. Gathered here to weigh in on whether or not Captain Rivera DESERVES a page of entry in limitless digital space, because ALL he did was the above, we have 7 mystery identities: Lettler, Mztourist, Bushranger, Captain Raju, Clarityfiend, Peacemaker67, Intothatdarkness. I can remember when the public library or an expensive private encyclopedia was the only way for people without a lot of money to explore the world, other than joining the military, or some other risky occupation. I hope this comment is a small reminder that there are a lot of "we the people" that rely on you to put your best foot forward in your leadership activities. Good luck and Best Regards, Klgeels ( talk) 21:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Why in this discussion did you opt for redirect rather than delete? The end result was 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 1 merge and 3 mostly meaningless comments. The case for deletion was better argued and, aside from the editor who opted for redirect, none of the others bothered to argue their case. The one who said merge is, in fact, known for just throwing merges or redirects (anything but delete) around deletion discussions without taking the time to look at the context and properly analyze what is the best course of action. It was totally unreasonable for you to summarily ignore the case for deletion after I had painstakingly argued it and after the discussion had already been dragged on for an unreasonable amount time. I beg you reconsider your decision. Avilich ( talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Out of curiosity, why have you relisted several AfDs with clear consensus? Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen Hancher. 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. Cheers, Ovinus ( talk) 05:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Per your closing comments, could you please restore and redirect to Haslar such that I can merge some content to there and other related articles. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi. Can you make a request to review/close an AFD currently under discussion or do you have to wait until decision is made? I'm also considering review of one recently closed. Can you request review of more than one or will doing so cause one to prejudice the other? Thanks.
HistoricalAccountings ( talk) 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel. I don't see a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng and I was planning to support retention. I previously supported retention in 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Chiu Yeng where an admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5. Would you reopen and relist the AfD? From my searches for sources, the subject has received more recent coverage such as this profile in China Daily Hong Kong Edition in 2018. Combined with this 2016 article in the South China Morning Post and this 2017 article in Ming Pao, there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel! Unfortunately, I was unable to contribute to " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crest Capital" before it was closed; considering that it is a soft delete and in the light of the possibly credible dead ref(s) on the article and these recent coverages— 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5—I am hoping that you could reopen it for me to contribute and clean-up the article. There are also some old mentions— 1 and 2—too. Thank you. 129.205.124.46 ( talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply