User talk:Dondegroovily/archive 2011

User talk:Dondegroovily/archivetable

Apology

Hello,

I am sorry about how I argued in the BangaBasha AfD. I think I let some frustrations in my personal life get to me. After taking a close look at the article, I changed my recommendation from "Keep" to "Delete". Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Note: This is in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BangaBhasha

Your latest AfDs

• I'm confused by your latest nominations because it appears that you don't actually want the articles in question deleted. If that's the case, why bring them to AfD at all? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, without knowing which ones your talking about, it's hard to say. I did make a couple of recent nominations that were previously nominated for speedy deletion. If someone else thought it was a speedy candidate, then others are likely to vote delete as well, and a discussion is warranted. And discussion, not deletion, is the real purpose of AfD. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not entirely true, BTW, although it appears that you continue to nominate articles that you don't particularly want to see deleted. If you want another outcome, such as a merge, you only really need to bring a merge to AfD if it's contested. Feel free to be bold and redirect fictional elements that can be merged, and save the AfD discussions for the ones that are contested. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, I'm not sure which ones you're talking about. In some cases, tho, I know next to nothing about the topic and don't want to be bold about a topic I know nothing about. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Not hard to figure out, if you've watchlisted your AfD's. Of course, if you're only limiting yourself to initiating as many AfDs at once as you can keep track of, this shouldn't pose a challenge. But, take Titus Groan (character) as an example. There's no list of characters, the character is limited to one series, and there has not been an attempt to merge which has been reverted, has there? Why clutter up AfD with things where you can just do the merge yourself? Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Rooks (promoter)

December 2010

The article Robert Rooks (promoter) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ttonyb (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

The article Robert Rooks (promoter) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ttonyb (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When performing a merger.

Dondegroovily, good work on the merging of I-card and Identification card. In the future when you perform mergers you should try to remember to add the tag below to the talk page of the target page per Help:Merging.

{{merged-from|Source}}

Tagging in this way provides a link to old discussions about content that came from the old page that was merged into the new one. Keep up the good work and good luck figuring out that other merge request.Cliff (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been using the merged-to and merged-from tags now, since someone told me about it about a month ago. As far as "that other merge request", clearly you have no idea how much merging I've done. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Rooks (promoter) for deletion

The article Robert Rooks (promoter) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rooks (promoter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cind.amuse 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.

Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas metropolitan area

I have rewritten the introduction of this article and moved out the demographics to the MSA article. That should allow this article to be refocused on the Las Vegas Valley which I believe is the consensus of the the various move and rewrite discussions. If you have any comments, please leave them on the article talk page so that we can continue to improve the article. If the focus is acceptable per the other discussions, then more of the article needs rewriting along with a move to Las Vegas Valley at some point. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Technocracy

I remember you nominating the Technocracy and some other M:TA articles for deletion, so in case you still think they should be removed in some form, you might be interested in me nominating it to be merged. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Hi Dondegroovily, I have closed the WP:RM at Las Vegas with a no consensus on the move. I added a little note that once more people appear to agree on it, I would re-list it again at WP:RM. Regards, KiloT 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Party Favours

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 doesn't apply to articles about books, and there is an indication of importance (the author seems to be notable, and the book "won considerable attention"). I've added a notability template - if you still want to request deletion, you could start an AFD or propose to merge the article. Peter E. James (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are exactly right. I'm sorry for the error. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad practise

Next time before posting such a move request, post at the appropriate project talk page. I, nor any other editor, will permit such a violation of agreed-upon standards. Do not try to hoodwink us simply because we are WikiProject China. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:AGF. I'm not trying to hoodwink anybody. I wasn't aware of the standard. If you want to relist the move request, notifying Wikiproject China this time, go right ahead. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Signature

Hello Dondegroovily, I would just like to alert you to the fact that your signature is long and awkward to read and may be confusion to some readers. Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy on custom signatures WP:CUSTOMSIG, you may want to change it so it is less space consuming and (more importantly) easier to read. Thanks! ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 04:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Class A Airspace/Airport

Even if these topics are the same the Class A Airspace article is written so technically that it is completely unhelpful to a layperson. The Class A Airport page is much easier to read and understand without all the technical jargon. I'd recommend that we keep both articles or that someone that understands these topics edit the Class A Airspace article to make it more accessible to someone who isn't a pilot. --Trödel 12:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Class A Airport warrants its own article. For one thing, the article works better with the context provided by showing the other classes as well. I'll tag Airspace class as technical. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Diwali

Hello Donde
I notice you merged Diwali in Gujarat into the Diwali article a few days ago; this is just to let you know I’ve de-merged them, for the reasons I’ve given here and here. It seemed the best solution, but please say if you disagree, or are unhappy with my action. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. However, I disagree with your statement that having it in the Diwali article won't improve things. As part of the Diwali article, way more users will see it, and improvements will come quicker. I've seen this happen with previous merges of low profile pages into high profile pages - the content was rather quickly fixed, because editors saw it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pitch penny

I've asked you a question at Talk:Pitch penny. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your break of Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I've reverted your recent de-merge. I think that there is an argument for it, perhaps, eventually. But not right now, as the article is only 33k long, and the topic isn't really notable enough to stand on its own. Remember, the more fragmented a topic is, the more likely its articles will be listed for deletion. The phrases page, even fully bulked up, has had to go through one AfD already. Serendi^podous 08:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

The discussion at Talk:Verification_and_Validation#Merge_of_V.26V_Section_from_Formal_verification.23Validation_and_Verification has not been closed and so removing the merge tags is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, merging discussions have no process, and I've only seen less than 1% of merge discussions shown as "closed" after merging several thousand pages. After three years, I think it's safe to pull the tag. If someone wanted the merge done, they would have done it. Three years is plenty of time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to your knowledge then: Wikipedia:Merging See step IV. . The discussion is still open. No one has indicated that it's closed. It's certainly dormant. If you want to close it, feel free to close it first. I always check before reverting your removal of the maintenance templates. I have no problems with you closing the discussion first, but don't remove the templates because you feel like it's time without closing the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so there it is. But that doesn't matter as much as you think. No one actually does this. Most merge discussions are never even opened, much less closed. The merge tags rarely link to the discussion (rare enough that I just check both talk pages and don't even bother with the link), and sometimes merge discussions have been archived, not "closed", while the merge tag remains. The merge process is so broken that it's not even worth attempting to follow it. Back to the topic of the merge discussion wasn't "closed", Wiki is not a bureaucracy. After three years with almost no discussion, you don't need to create a box to realize it's no consensus and delete the tag. Try working thru the backlog and compare the "process" with reality. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What a lame excuse for not doing the right thing. Just because something may be broken doesn't mean should should jump on it and make it worse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason is Ignore all rules, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Be bold. Your argument, on the other hand, is follow the rules, obey the bureaucracy and be timid. In this case, better to break rules than to follow that one broken policy and let the 16,000 unresolved merges just languish. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is anarchy is fine as long as it's on Wikipedia. Feel free to be bold but be prepared to be boldly reverted. Feel free to close the discussion as no consensus and remove the tags, but don't just do 2/3 of the job. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you insist on bureaucracy, I'll be bureaucratic. I "closed" the discussion and deleted the tags. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Merging about fixing this mess. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jericho

How about you discuss your deletion of Jericho episode articles on Talk:List of Jericho episodes and gain consensus before you unilaterally remove them all? Barsoomian (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing merge tags

Hi. I saw your comments at WT:Merging#The catastrophically failing merge process. Thank you for working on the merge tag backlog. It would be helpful if you would add a little detail to your removal edit summaries, like reason (already done, no discussion, stale, consensus against, etc.) and wikilinks to the talk page discussions. Could you try using {{Copied}} to tag the completed mergers? Help talk:Merging#Deprecating merged-from and merged-to has a brief discussion on why it's preferred. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually I do give a reason in edit summaries. As far as merged-to and merged-from, I intend to keep using them. These tags work much better and are much more clear and easier to use than copied, plus I still haven't seen the original discussion that decided that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider using both {{merged-to}}/{{merged-from}} and {{Copied}}? Part of the reason that {{Copied}} is more difficult to use is that it records the additional information of the relevant oldids. I know of discussions that cover why that information is useful, which I can link if they might convince you. Are you familiar with WP:Copying within Wikipedia? Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Using both is kinda silly. It also implies two action when there was only one. Also, merged-to/merged-from does record the date, making it easy to find the revision. As far as difficulty, the real difficulty I think is linking to old revisions, and copied suffers from this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting talk page

Richhoncho, has been redirecting talk pages (as per my watchlist) most of this week. Some of them did have info on them! Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for reverting my edit on Talk:Tripping the Live Fantastic: Highlights!, I shouldn't have redirected that one, not only because of content, but also because the target was not specifically to a variant of Tripping the Live Fantastic: Highlights! However, where Yeepsi has created literally 100s of redirects, many merely for alternative capitalisation (which is quite pointless in itself) I have been redirecting the talk page as there is absolutely no point in having two or more talk pages for the same subject. You will note that there are other editors doing exactly the same thing. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The redirects are not pointless. There are links all over the web with all kinds of capitalizations and we don't want to kill people's link. Redirects are cheap and should rarely be deleted. If you object to the way a redirect works, it's better to comment at the redirect's talk page - Oh Wait! You're getting rid of the talk pages. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case, please can you show me the guidelines that suggest I am wrong. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to look, give me a moment. The stuff about not deleting redirects is easy to find, but I'm not sure about redirecting talk pages. To be fair, you haven't presented anything to show your view is right. And redirecting the talk page doesn't delete the redirect, so that's not a reason to do it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I also note that that a page move will also create a redirect for the talkpage at the same time, which does actually partially support my edits. Look forward to seeing the guideline. Again, thanks for your help. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging process

Your proposal here seems adequate to handle the issue at hand and as clarified by a commenting user has once failed to be taken into account due to lack of action. I suggest initiating a village pump or recruiting technical support for the process (See comments) to prevent the proposal dying out this time. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I was thinking of creating a draft policy page in userspace. Does that sound like a good ideas? I also I'm not familiar with village pump or tech support and how that works. Could you help me with that? Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've not participated in village pump before either but I think this one would be the right place to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) link our discussion to. Yes, the idea seems to be pretty good and I'm sure no one will oppose its basics. Let's add link to our discussion there and see what more we can do about it. I'll help in whatever I can. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've transcluded our discussion on the proposal to the village pump proposals for consideration. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus is different from no objection

Please don't confuse the two. Toddst1 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, context please? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Talk:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Bowie, Maryland). Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Westfield Hornsby

Hi. In case you haven't looked back at the AfD, I did a major cleanup added more references. Most importantly though, I noted that the shopping centre won a prestigious award back in 2003. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move: Geauga lake area

Dondegroovily - In my intial review of Geauga lake area for a requested move, it became glaringly evident that a title change (even if there is consensus for it) will do nothing to improve WP. The article is completely un-sourced and so poorly written, that a title change would serve little purpose. The article doesn't even say where this place is--literally it only says Cleveland in the 3rd paragraph (could it be Cleveland, TN or any of the dozen other Clevelands in the US). Wouldn't it be more productive to work on the article and get it into WP shape before requesting a title change? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)