Wikipedia

User talk:Ansh666/Archive 7

< User talk:Ansh666
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Ansh666 in topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Nakon • Scott
  Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

  Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

RfA stuff

Latest comment: 7 years ago51 comments33 people in discussion

A cup of coffee for you!

  Because the opposes on your RfA are honestly nuts. Have some of this to get you through it. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hah, yeah, thanks! though unfortunately I don't drink coffee don't oppose me ansh666 19:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be a better reason to oppose than some of the current ones  . You can change out the coffee for hot beverage of your choice :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hot chocolate, anyone (I say that it doesn't matter whether it is winter or not; hot chocolate is good anytime!)? :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: One lesson to learn from RfA is that the aggregate has far more respect for candidates that take reasonable opposition seriously than for those who denigrate the editors who disagree with a candidacy. Honestly, denigrating any group of people almost always leads to unintended consequences. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris troutman, the comments here were not aimed at some of the later opposes but the early ones that made the comments that 12,000 edits and several years weren't enough. The early opposes on this RfA moved me from initially planning on sitting it out to supporting early on, and I think you'll find other supporters who would agree. I left ansh this note as a way of saying not to worry. I'm sorry if you are offended: my comments weren't aimed at you or any of the more substantial opposes or neutral !votes that came after. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: It's not much of an apology to say that you didn't mean to offend me, but that you meant to offend someone else. Suffice to say, encouraging Ansh666 does not require your method. Contact me on my talk page if you really want to engage me on this. Otherwise, I'm willing to chalk this up to "mistakes were made." Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

TIL you get the giant banner and notification and email and everything no matter how small the edit on your talk page is. Quite unfortunate. ansh666 22:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty likely this RfA is going to pass, so well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ansh666 10:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks to be all over bar the bureaucracy, so let me be among the first to welcome you to the heady ranks of adminhood. Your mop is over there in the corner; we'll find you a flak jacket later. Congratulations! Yunshui 雲水 10:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernus (band) especially for you :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, hope I did everything right o_o ansh666 16:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has opened a request at WP:DRV for an AFD you recently closed. Congratulations! :) ZettaComposer (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools! Maxim(talk) 10:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 
Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Really glad it passed, man, though it wasn't in doubt. Welcome aboard! – Athaenara ✉ 11:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA. I admire anyone willing to put themselves through that process. :) CThomas3 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I had a legitimate policy-backed reason to block Davey the other day (as he knows), but sadly it was counterbalanced by the common-sense reason of "don't be a cock to longstanding editors". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha please block me!, Please end my years of misery and suffering lol, I tell you what tho it certainly was a miracle I wasn't blocked the other day, I will say in all fairness since the last block I do tread very carefully –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

 

Congrats on your RfA!

L3X1 (distænt write) 12:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
It's now your turn to hear what the puppy told me after my RFA passed –
ten long, sordid, everybody-wishes-I-would-shut-up-about-this-but-won't-tell-me-to-my-face years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'd be shocked if you haven't done it already.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
    It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 17:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. Or possibly incoherent.
All rights released under GFDL.
HEY, that last one wasn't funny! I'm disappointed... :) Thanks! ansh666 17:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

  Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!

Congratulations on getting your mop!!! Now let the fun begin! Enjoy a glass from the great state of Wisconsin!!!

Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Dolotta (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I...oh, the cat's eaten it. ansh666 01:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy a drink from someone that didn't support you.

  It's common for new admins to thank all the editors that supported them; some have even handed out awards. This is the first time I've seen anyone reach out to opposers. While I stand by my earlier comments, you certainly have earned respect from me by taking the classy route. Good luck to you. In the coming months and years when the vandals and crazies attack you, don't forget that you wield the mop on behalf of many editors that believe in you. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words! I'll be sure to keep that in mind :) ansh666 06:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I will second Chris' above comment. I congratulate you and wish you every success as an admin! -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious

game design

Thank you for the articles you created, for service over 10 years although this user "has made more than 1 contribution to Wikipedia and, as a result, may be slightly insane", for designing the game of your RfA well, for reaching out with thanks, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Though now I guess people may be jumping to desysop me for WP:GAMING :) ansh666 05:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

  The Special Barnstar
Great job on your RfA! You answered the questions intelligently and there wasn't a single response I disagreed with. Good luck with the mop and I wish you well! TheGoldenParadox (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  Congrats on your RfA Bobherry Talk Edits 13:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
  Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the racist attack on you

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting#ISIS Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have and it's honestly pretty hilarious to me, I'm bowing out of the talk page and will let others deal with it as they please. Thanks for the note, though. ansh666 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I’ve warned them. It’s the racist nature that I can’t put up . Doug Weller talk 20:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
They are a sock, probably a logged out editor evading scrutiny. Mastcell blocked but they said they are leaving the address anyway. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Possibly Namarly, who was also blocked for 3RR regarding the same passage among other things, and who was spouting the same general invective as the IP - timing matches too. I interpreted that edit summary as saying that they were leaving the shooting article (and indeed they did, though of course the block three minutes later may have had something to do with that, whereupon Namarly started edit warring it back in), but I see how it could be interpreted to be switching accounts/IPs as well. Thanks again, ansh666 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY"

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I do not believe that "most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY" is a "valid argument for deletion".  The argument is unsure about notability.  As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, which is identified as "discussion guidelines" to all AfD participants, "If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk."  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, those are steps for before a page has been nominated. Once that's been done, though, there's really no harm in letting the discussion run its course, especially if what you're suggesting is to just open another discussion immediately. WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAU and all that. After all, the point of AfD is to determine whether or not an article is notable enough for inclusion, no? ansh666 18:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I read the other articles nominated for deletion, that were being considered at the same time as the Thompson article. Actually I read the titles, only two of which I found interesting enough to open, including the 2012 Romney endorsements article. I thought both should be deleted. Others might differ. Activist (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Unscintillating: From "Discussion guidelines": Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Activist (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about close

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (Kansas politician) – I count 4 !votes for keep and 4 !votes for redirect, with the issue boiling down to one group asserting there isn't enough coverage and the other asserting there is. How did you assess the consensus as redirect? – Joe (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. It's important to remember that consensus isn't just built on a head count, but also on the strength of arguments. There were really only two keep rationales worth considering, and most others disagreed with the premise that there was enough significant coverage to warrant the subject having an article independent of the election article. I also took into account the closing of the previous discussion in this case and others' comments that the sourcing hadn't really changed from that discussion. There is nothing stopping recreation or un-redirection of the article if the notability of the subject changes in the future. ansh666 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I appreciate that it isn't a head count. I just found it a frustrating AfD in that it boiled down to myself and others asserting that there was significant coverage (although I at least provided a list of sources), and another group of editors asserting that there wasn't significant coverage, with little to no discussion of policy on what the standard of "significant coverage" should be on this topic, or why the sources that had been provided should be dismissed. So for me (although I'm obviously biased), all the arguments for redirect/deletion were at least as weak as the two keep !votes you dismissed, and I would have expected it to close as no consensus or to be relisted. Anyway I take your point about the previous AfD counting too, and I'm not going to take it DRV or anything. Thanks again for taking the time to explain your reasoning. – Joe (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Nah, thanks for coming here and asking me about it; I probably should have explained a bit more in the close itself. And, honestly, that's what a majority of "contentious" AfDs boil down to - one group of people asserting that the sources are enough for whatever the nominator's concerns are, and others asserting they aren't. ansh666 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Activist

I received an inquiry a short time ago from another editor who had not previously weighed in anywhere about the James Thompson article. The editor had read the article's Talk page, noted my participation in the discussion, and he or she wanted to vote to keep but couldn't figure out how to do so. I was puzzled so tried to figure it out, and got the redirect to the 4th District election article. There had been questions put on the Talk page to which I responded copiously, for instance, about the notable coverage of the candidate and the election. So I answered by noting and posting repeated coverage in a British paper, and also there was wide coverage in the U.S., i.e., NYT, WaPo, Fortune, Trump tweets, etc. There were many remarkable things about both the candidate and the election, for instance, the history of the district (Trump carried it by 27%, the well-known Republican statewide officer candidate got support from his predecessor, from the state Republican party, from Trump, Pence, Cruz, Ryan, etc., and the margins of Republican victories have averaged over 30% for 13 years and over 20% for 21 years, the lack of national Democratic party financial support for the candidate ((I'm guessing he was punished for being a Sanders supporter. That's speculative, but DNC Chair Tom Perez's harsh rejection of tendering support is notable in itself.)), the token and only last-minute support from the state Democratic party, the close margin in a low-turnout by-election (which tend to favor conservatives), just 6.2%, the huge underfunding of his candidacy compared to the winner, the expensive, savage and mendacious televisted attacks on his character and his positions. I added considerable personal history, from homelessness, military service, his civil rights practice, where his first plaintiff, a very young victim of police brutality, got almost a million dollar settlement in a city where juries were disinclined to award such plaintiffs anything. In my opinion, the article thoroughly met the critera for notability. One supporter of deletion actually slashed a considerable amount of detail from the article itself without explanation, while the discussion was in progress, though I restored it. I probably spent 30 hours researching it, and other editors weighed in to Keep the article. Some of arguments in support of deletion were frankly ridiculous, such as that it was essentially the same as when it had initially been deleted (in fact it was not remotely so, as you can see if you look, and was five times as long as the original had been when deleted). I expected it to be kept. Ironically, I spent about 12 hours in the last day researching articles about world class athletes from the '50s and '60s who competed as frontrunners in the Olympics most historically famous track and field contest, the 1960 Rome marathon. The bulk of those articles were stubs, though they were about national and world record holders and otherwise additionally notable competitors from a number of different countries, and some hadn't been edited for a decade. I expanded them all, and they are no longer stubs and have solid sources. Now admittedly Thompson's candidacy wasn't as notable as the U.S. Senate races of Sharon Angle ("2nd Amendment solutions") or Christine O'Donnell ("I am not a witch") to which latter his article was compared, but no one, in a decade, was motivated to remove them and only a couple even had stub notices. I made over 50 edits to them. So I find myself unable to understand the zeal that a few editors have expressed to delete the Thompson article, the anxiety about doing it quickly, the disregard that they have expressed with reference my patient, diligent and extensively well supported responses to the points they had noted in their support for deletion or redirection (which was tantamount in this case, to deletion), and the support of other editors to Keep. Some perhaps were unwilling to fairly revisit their opinion about the original and admittedly shaky article, having previously made their minds up. So I have to tell you I am baffled by your possibly precipitous, though unintentional, action. I may have failed to respond properly, as I believe this is the first AfD discussion I've participated in, during 11 years of editing at Wikipedia, so I'm a novice in this respect. (Should I have removed the AfD notice?) Perhaps you can enlighten me as to its basis. I don't know if you reviewed the article itself, or its Talk page before redirecting. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not suggesting that the supporters of deletion or redirection have not edited in good faith: I'm just asking what I think is a legitimate question. Thanks. Activist (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S. This was essential a "backwater" election, in flyover country. Thompson got less than $300,000 in contributions and PAC support for his campaign, while a week later, the losing Democratic candidate for the House seat opened by Tom Price's resignation got $30,000,000, or 100 times as much from national Democratic organizations. Activist (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
PPS I had read, months ago, that in Jon Ossoff's election campaign, he got $11 million in mostly "small" contributions. Last week, I read that it was in fact $30 million. I just checked on it, and the actual amount might be somewhere in the middle.

Jon Ossoff broke national fundraising records for a U.S. House candidate.[31] In total, Ossoff's campaign raised more than $23 million, two-thirds of which was contributed by small-dollar donors nationwide.[32] Ossoff's opponent, Karen Handel, and national Republican groups attacked Ossoff for raising significant small-dollar contributions from outside of Georgia, although Handel's campaign received the bulk of its support from super PACs and other outside groups, including those funded anonymously by so-called "dark money".[33][34] Combined spending by the campaigns and outside groups on their behalf added up to over $55 million, which was the most expensive House Congressional election in U.S. history.[35]

What's the difference between the Ossoff article and the deleted Thompson article? In my estimation, it's what that sage of the Deep South, Governor George Wallace, described as: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats." Actually, the difference is, no Wikipedia editor is trying to erase Ossoff from History, and Thompson immediately filed for the 2018 KS CD-4 election. Activist (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are addressing your question to the closing administrator.  I've started a new section for your discussion.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Activist: You say, I'm just asking what I think is a legitimate question. I can't figure out from that wall of text what question you want answered. I already explained the close succinctly above (diff). It is not the role of a closer to determine the "correct" course of action, but instead to figure out the consensus of the participants of the discussion, which was in this case that the subject of the article was not notable enough to merit having an individual standalone article. ansh666 02:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My question is, for those whose time is too precious to read more than a few lines, is, "Was this a proper closing?" You've reduced your decision to simple math: 4 is greater than 2. As I'd written, another editor wanted to weigh in but that would have left it at 4:3, perhaps not sufficient for your standards. Four weak arguments defeat two strong ones. My point was that the arguments to delete or redirect were insufficient, there was no particular urgency to come to a decision, and the subject of the article was not the election, but was the candidate, and the election was subsidiary to that. The election was notable, but not in a vacuum, which is where you've left it with a redirect that does not do the issues justice, in my opinion. Here are two more questions. Did you read the article as it stood, and did you read its Talk page? Activist (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I very specifically didn't reduce [my] decision to simple math; I considered just about everything I could have. Again, it's not the role of a closer to determine the "right" outcome, but to figure out the strongest points and act on them. I get that you're passionate about the subject and believe that you're right, but many others disagree with your assessments, and they had more varied and equally strong arguments policy-wise. For the record, I did read the article and talk page before the close, but I saw nothing that would change my decision. ansh666 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Parbati Rai?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can you undelete Parbati Rai? It seems someone hijacked the page to be about another person. The original article was created regarding the national parliamentarian of the same name, see the article history. --Soman (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. ansh666 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies regarding the technical edit at Talk:Lakan Timamanukum‎

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Just a quick apology; I mistook your edit at Talk:Lakan Timamanukum‎ for Vandalism when in fact you were executing a Technical Close of the talk page nomination in favor of the main article AFD. I've been dealing with tag-reverting vandals a lot lately and so I was quick to draw conclusions. Is there any further resulting damage that I need to undo? Please just tell me. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Nah, looks good. Thanks, ansh666

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Semple McPherson (film)...

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thx for re-listing. This AFD discussion has been somewhat troubling to me. I think that the "Professor" has a COI with the production and with the filmmaker himself - I considered bringing this account up at COIN but he has not actually edited the Aimee film article; however, the Richard Rossi article is another matter entirely (plus all those associated images...). I'm going to post over at WIkiProject Film and see if I can get some more eyes on it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This SPI may be of interest to you

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The user ECarlisle opposed your request for adminship [[1]. I believe that user is a sock of HughD (talk · contribs) who many have had interactions with you in the past based on a user interaction history. [[2]]. Just wanted to let you know.Springee (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Do not close a discussion while it is still going on. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? By definition, it isn't going on anymore once I've closed it. Relisted deletion discussions can be closed at any time once it's judged that consensus has been reached. ansh666 23:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't close a discussion when it is still going on. The last comments were just hours old. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I honestly didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out. ansh666 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: thanks for your comment/revert but Bandy here does have a good point - I did the GMT conversion wrong and didn't realize how recent the last discussion was, so I guess I'll honor this informal request to revert my close. I doubt it'll turn out differently in the end though. ansh666 00:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It's already run its course. This AfD's been open for nearly a month, it's been weeks since there's been a new editor advocating anything other than delete, and the only discussion the keep proponents are pushing now is filibustering. There is no obligation to hold an AfD open indefinitely just because one side doesn't like the outcome. Ravenswing 00:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of reclosing it by the end of my day (PST) if nobody else commented. It's not going to run another week or whatever. ansh666 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Restore deleted article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I worked on this page and you deleted my works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves:_Homeland Can you give copy of the page, I can upload it again. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the article. ansh666 19:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, Why have you deleted Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)?? JonasJepsen (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonas, I deleted the page because a deletion discussion regarding the page was closed with consensus to delete the article because the subject did not meet the relevant notability guidelines; the closure was done by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. ansh666 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the concerns were that there isn't enough written about Mr. Mitchell by other sources such as newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Nisker

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

G5 is invalid for this page, because it was created in '14 and the master wasn't blocked until 2016. Thought I'd let you know to avoid wheel-warring. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Sorry, don't know what you mean by G5? An editor was hired to create the page. Did the policy change after the page was created? Thanks very much. 205.211.94.206 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:G5 is for pages created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block, and since the user who created the page was not blocked until two years later it's not valid. As for paid editing - in 2014 we didn't have a policy on paid editing. So yes, the policy changed. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Having dealt with an OTRS ticket from the article subject today (who was wondering why the page about him had disappeared) I've just looked into this a bit more and Primefac is correct; this was not a legitimate deletion under WP:G5 (which is primarily for dealing with creations by sockpuppets) - the user was not blocked or banned at the time they created the page, and there was no policy preventing undisclosed paid editing in force at that time. As such, I'm restoring the page (although it does have a PROD template in the restored version, which may well result in its deletion anyway). Yunshui 雲水 16:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui, I was planning on waiting before closing the ticket but this works too. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Many hands (or possibly cooks?)... Yunshui 雲水 16:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Aaah, sorry about that, guys. Forgot to check dates. Should probably remind DGG to check before tagging too. Thanks, ansh666 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I added a G11 template, and suggest deletion as such, to avoid the inevitable request for restoration. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC) .

Halloween cheer!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
Happy Halloween!

Hello Ansh666:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
  Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Patan Riots Close as merge

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Could you explain the close as merge a little more? The patan riots would be extremely undue for the Violence against Muslims article as it contains summaries of extremely notable riots - with separate articles - where 100+ people were killed - not where 2 were killed (this is not to say that the article isn't notable, just that it's too small of an event for such an overarching summary article that is Violence against Muslims in India). As far as I saw of the three people who !voted merge, only one person had any explanation more than "i'd be okay with merging it" - and part of turned out to be incorrect as the Template:Violence against Muslims in India is only suppose to contain the major events (and is now culled to show that there isn't more events now than in the 1950s). All his argument was: "this makes more sense to talk about in the context of the larger article." I personally don't really see how that is enough to ignore all the other !votes. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 06:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm. After looking more into that article, I'd have to say you're right. I didn't initially look at it - I'd assumed that it had some sort of history outline, not just a list of major events where hundreds of people died. As it stands, I agree that it would be undue merged into that article as it is currently organized. I've converted it to no consensus. Thanks for the note! ansh666 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I figure it was going to be a no consensus. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 06:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, if nobody had brought up the merge that would have been my first choice. It seemed like an option that was too good to be true - and I guess, it turned out to be. ansh666 06:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There seems 14 votes for delete(including nom) and 10 votes for keep, 1 for merge and 2 for redirect/merge. It means at least 17 against 10 users didn't wanted standalone article, don't you think that a redirect would be an appropriate choice other than deleting? Capitals00 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Not particularly. I didn't do numbers before the close (though I think it's more about 13/11/2 actually: one "keep and merge" implying having the content in both places and one "merge/redirect", while at least one of the delete comments don't address any valid concerns), and I think of AfD as determining more "should this content be included somewhere or not included at all" - exactly where the content is eventually located is an editorial decision - than "should a page at this title exist", which leads to a generally even split and thus no consensus. ansh666 07:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not a bad joke; we should make an effort to keep things as light as possible. Regards :) Tiderolls 20:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Thanks, ansh666 21:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hey, thanks for declining that G6. pretty sure I meant to g6 the leftover draftspace from the move anyways. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you did both. ansh666 18:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting request for deletion of Ecem Cömert

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! You have reverted my request for deletion of Ecem Cömert, a page that I had created wrongly. The correct title is Ecem Cumert, which I created by moving "Ecem Cömert". Since the initial page was in error, I requested to get it deleted. I guess you misunderstood the situation, and therefore I kindly ask tı perform the deletion. Thanks. CeeGee 12:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi CeeGee, you added an WP:Articles for deletion tag, which doesn't apply to redirects. Is "Cömert" a plausible misspelling of "Cümert" (which is what UEFA's website, among others, spell it as)? If so, then it should probably be kept; if not, then I'll delete it for you. Thanks, ansh666 18:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi again! As I created the article the person was still in Germany. Her surname was written times as "Cumert" and times as "Cümert" or "Cömert". And, I assumed all those were misspellings of "Cömert", which is a correct Turkish word (for "generous" in English), and used also as a surname. However, when she moved to Turkey, the Turkish Football Federation referred to her as "Cumert", and as they are precise -possible taking her name from her passport- I made a Google-wide check and learned that "Cumert" is the correct name. Yes, the Germans change sometimes "o" to "ö" and "u" to "ü" in Turkish words without any reason. (I have studied and been 17 years in Germany). Conclusion: "Cumert" is correct and all others are wrong. Sorry that I mixed up AfD with RfD. I appreciate your delete for me. Thanks a lot. CeeGee 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. If as you said she's been referred to as all three, then it's possible that someone could go to Ecem Cömert looking for her? It might be better to leave it, or go RfD if you think it's really unnecessary. Sorry about the indecision on my part, I'm really not familiar with non-English spelling stuff. ansh666 18:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you will do nothing further. So, I will request Rfd by myself. CeeGee 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck. Hopefully next time someone more knowledgeable than me will be able to help you. :) ansh666 19:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Ansh666. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Joe Roe
  JzG
  Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 in British music charts (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I've just noticed this on my Watchlist. Please don't take offence but I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that there was a consensus to merge. I don't see one. Deb (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the nominating statement doesn't make a solid case for removing the content entirely (sourcing would work fine if it's trimmed and merged as suggested), nor does the one keep comment make any sense to me policy-wise. Keeping in mind the comments that there are chart sections in other "year in British music" articles and they don't make the articles excessively long, merging seems to be the only reasonable outcome of those presented. ansh666 18:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

IM On Demand

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, hope you will be well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Kaboom was closed as delete but someone closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IM On Demand which is actually a segment of G-Kaboom (channel which got deleted) as no consensus. It would be fair if you either reopen the AfD or reverse the decision. Pinging the closing user @Babymissfortune:. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-closed the second AfD as delete. @Babymissfortune: per WP:NOQUORUM, AfD discussions with no participation beyond the nominator should be evaluated and closed as an expired WP:PROD and deleted if the rationale is valid. Thanks, ansh666 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd ask him to also be more careful about NAC stuff - I've seen them relist things that can be closed by an admin and what not. Actually, looking at his talk page, he should just stop closing and relisting stuff - there are enough people who can do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on that point. ansh666 18:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How did you come up with a consensus to redirect? Exactly one user !voted for a redirect, and they seemed to be under the mistaken impression the article was about the full season rather than just the tournament, which received substantially more coverage than the rest of the season. So really, nobody who fully understood the situation wanted to redirect it. A number of users said redirect was preferable to deletion (which I would agree with) but unless there's consensus the subject isn't notable on its own, which you acknowledge there wasn't, that's irrelevant. So I fail to see how this is anything other than a supervote. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is something of a supervote, yes - as I said in the close, all relevant content as presented by the sources that the keep side claimed showed notability is included in the main article, so it's effectively maintained (it's effectively a merge, but with the content already at the target there's no reason to explicitly state that in the close). After a quick look over the sources, I felt that the delete side had a stronger argument, and the main keep reason cited by everyone states in the first paragraph that "articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players" which just made me laugh (though it doesn't exactly apply, since it's WP:NSEASONS) and completely misunderstands whole chunks of WP:GNG and other policies. All in all, there was a lot of talking past each other and little in the way of actual discussion, so in the end I made the best editorial judgment I could. ansh666 18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ansh666/Archive_7&oldid=1142856039"