User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2015/8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. 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. |
massedit
Hi! Great tool. It would be more greate, if there would be some combobox for page existance:
- edit only if the page exists
- edit only if the page doesn't exist
- don't care whether the page exists.
This is useful when creating redirects. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 August 2015
- Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google
- News and notes: VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief
- WikiProject report: Meet the boilerplate makers
- Traffic report: Mrityorma amritam gamaya...
- Featured content: Maya, Michigan, Medici, Médée, and Moul n'ga
August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
| Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
- News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA
- In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event
- Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom
- Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz
author's effort should be respected.
Dear Timotheus, Over last seven days since you proposed of the deletion of the article William X. Wang, as the original creator of the article, I have made a lot of, which maybe more than 50 times, change and improvement on the old version by following the guidance of wiki. It has largely changed the previous situation which you had critic on those. I feel that you might not read the last version at all and then made the decision of deletion in final. If you have read, you would found many thing new in it and you would have gave me some updated comments or suggestion on it. The author, who may not reached a level that you can appreciate, but his effort should be respected. Kirkwood829. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkwood829 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- First, I didn't nominate the article for deletion. Someone else did. Second, given the AfD discussion, I don't see how it can be closed any other way. Finally, having examined your edits, I don't see them as addressing the concerns raised in the AfD in any meaningful way. If you disagree, you can appeal my closure at deletion review, but I think it would be highly unlikely to succeed. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
White phosphorus use in Iraq
In this discussion, almost all the delete votes seem to really be merge votes. Would you mind resurrecting the article so I can merge it back into White phosphorus munitions, where it was originally split from? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 August 2015
- Travelogue: Seeing is believing
- Traffic report: Straight Outta Connecticut
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
AfD deleted article
Hello there! Just a heads-up to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiuolz Urbano given the article has already been deleted by you. Thank you and regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @FoCuSandLeArN: Huh? It's closed at the same time I deleted the article. T. Canens (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's weird, 14 minutes ago it appeared as still open. Never mind then! Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hello are you there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.9.182 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Jamie Lewis Page you deleted
I am his webmaster. I would like to have this page reinstated, there was no notice on why you would delete this- Please contact me asap- thanks! sandy info@theweblady.com ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.67.158 (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lewis (musician, entrepreneur) found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. See WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for the relevant criteria. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Article recovery
Is there any way to have the Andrew Phillip Almanza article recovered? He is on many tv shows and commercials and has gotten police escorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescott222 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Multiple editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Phillip Almanza were unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. If you have such sources, feel free to create a draft in your userspace (at, say, User:Jamescott222/Andrew Phillip Almanza) and ask for another look at deletion review. Also, please do not recreate an article deleted by AFD. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Jamie Lewis/musician deleted page
Hi,
I have found resources that help the article past the notability test. I understand there is policies that must be followed and I am prepared to follow them. Not only was Jamie Lewis a child of two talented musicians, he is also a talented musician himself. He has started a number of different companies and helped alot of people.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nejardin1 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, that would violate the the conflict of interest policy. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- See my comment at #Jamie Lewis Page you deleted, above. If you can demonstrate that Jamie Lewis is notable within the meaning of our guidelines (see WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC), I can restore the page to your userspace for you to work on. You'll also have to comply with the conflict of interest guideline, and the disclosure provisions of the Terms of Use. T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
With 8 Delete !votes (9 or 10 if you count the Userfy and the TNT), and 4 Keep, I'm not sure how or why you closed this AfD as no consensus (or "trainwreck", to use your precise wording). None of the still-standing Deletes changed their minds after the re-write (and we were all watching the page, and many actually took the trouble to reconfirm their Delete !votes). If an AfD appears to be confusing or inconclusive to a closer, the procedure is to either let someone else close it, or re-list it and let it run longer. It had barely even run one week. I urge you to re-open the discussion and let more !votes clarify the situation. As it stands, to me it is a clear consensus (more than a majority) to delete, as it was. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the closure accurately reflected the debate. If the result was a train wreck I don't think it was a fault in interpretation. Chillum 03:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't a train wreck. If you read it carefully, there were a lot of unrelated tangents under discussion (which might be confusing to someone just happening upon the discussion, yet could easily be ignored), but the result concerning the article itself, including the re-write, was 8 to 10 Delete, versus 4 Keep. If there were any question about that consensus, keeping it open more than one week would be the ideal solution. Contentious or confusing or inconclusive or ongoing/developing discussions are routinely kept open for much longer than one week. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Relisting a mess usually result in a bigger mess, not clarification. Also, did you notice the WP:NPASR clause of the close? Perhaps it would help to think of it as TNT applied to AFDs? T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't a train wreck. If you read it carefully, there were a lot of unrelated tangents under discussion (which might be confusing to someone just happening upon the discussion, yet could easily be ignored), but the result concerning the article itself, including the re-write, was 8 to 10 Delete, versus 4 Keep. If there were any question about that consensus, keeping it open more than one week would be the ideal solution. Contentious or confusing or inconclusive or ongoing/developing discussions are routinely kept open for much longer than one week. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK whatevsies. I just wanted to register my civilized discontent (see what I did there?). Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide some basis for you delete close? There are no end of national media articles that meet WP:GNG. And eliminating sources because the newspaper only has a reach of 40,000 has no basis in anything - good grief, the entire nation only has a population of 65,000! Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- You provided three sources, and there was a reasonable rebuttal for all three (even discounting the 40000 part). Moreover, even assuming that GNG is met, that doesn't guarantee a standalone article (see last bullet of WP:GNG); other considerations, including the "longstanding consensus" cited by multiple delete !voters, may also lead to a consensus against having a standalone article. T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- All true. However, can you put the basis for the closure in the closing statement? There were certainly other articles that I could have listed - never had the chance; as the debated had closed when I next looked. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
deletion of Restomod Air
Hello,
The page Restomod Air was tagged for deletion because of the lack of initial third party coverage. That was rectified and verified with a the administrator that tagged the page yet it was still deleted. Could you please explain why it was permanently deleted by you? Could you help me rectify to your standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.76.104 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- The article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restomod Air, where nobody supported keeping it. I just examined the links in the deleted article, and do not see significant coverage of the company (as opposed to its products) in independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability (see WP:CORP). If you can find reliable sources providing such coverage, you can request reconsideration at deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
spihelper.js
Hello! Back again with a recommendation. Would you consider appending an identifier to the summaries indicating the edits were made using this script? For instance, "Adding sockpuppetry tag per ... (using spihelper)". Advantages are twofold: It will let interested users know that such a nifty script exists so they can start using it, and also it will help filter edits made by scripts from non-automated contributions. Just a thought! Best — MusikAnimal talk 00:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really inclined to do it. The use is fairly niche, plus the number of edits are fairly small, and pretty much limited to SPI pages and user/user talk pages. Not worth the all the spam, IMO. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
En1206
|
List of Miss World countries |
| Hi! I'm user En1206 can you put back the wikipedia of List of Miss World countries. Please! And I have a quesion, Why did you delete the List of Miss World countries page in wikipedia? Hope you read this message and Please, don't forget to put back the page in wikipedia of List of Miss World countries.
Nice Greetings! -User:En1206 En1206 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
- It was deleted per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World countries. To restore it, you need to make a request at deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: StudentVoice deletion
StudentVoice is the only representative association of school students in England, with members across the country. Despite a low public profile of late, its connections to the wider British and European student and trade union movements make the information collected on this page an important record in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 29837129a (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It was deleted per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudentVoice. "connections to the wider British and European student and trade union movements", by itself, does not establish notability. T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Canens, It was my first time at wikipedia and the page i made was of Ammad Azhar which has been deleted by you. The information i provided to you was all correct and would have added more links and reliable source but since i was out of city so couldnt login to see. Surprisingly i saw the page deleted. I wish you could have given me more time. Now please tell me what can i do to revive it or an asap solution as i am still in shock.
Thanks waiting for your kind reply at the earliest.
Shafaq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaqammad (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammad Azhar was pretty clear, and the discussion ran for the normal duration (1 week). If you have reliable sources that has significant coverage of the subject that the discussion participants did not uncover, you can make a request at deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I would truly appreciate if you could help me out here. I need to get my page back and for that i can provide all necessary reference/source. Please facilitate as im the undeletion request page keeps on popping me back to the deletion review page. or can i make the page again. please advise.
Thanks Shafaqammad (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please make a request at deletion review, listing the sources. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion: Time Slip
I don't believe there was a clear consensus to delete the article. There was a majority view, numerically, but articles for deletion are not bound by that. It's not a popularity vote. Liverpres (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, but we don't need a clear consensus either. A rough consensus is sufficient. I see one in that AFD. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- To have destroyed the entire article goes beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances, since discussion was revolving at the time you removed it, around improving the content. Liverpres (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:DRV is that way. And please don't recreate a deleted page - especially not by copying and pasting the deleted content in a way that breaks the license. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- You should have given more substantive reasons for deletion at the time. There were clearly reasonable arguments given for for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC).
- WP:DRV is that way. And please don't recreate a deleted page - especially not by copying and pasting the deleted content in a way that breaks the license. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- To have destroyed the entire article goes beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances, since discussion was revolving at the time you removed it, around improving the content. Liverpres (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Closure of AfD Discussion on "Greg Laughery"
Pursuant unto WP:DELREVD, I'd like to request your opinion and to initiate a discussion with you as regards your decision to close the AfD Discussion on the Article entitled Greg Laughery. The vote was numerically set at 3 (keep), 3 (delete), and 1 (weak delete, as of today) — this latter user was solicited to give comment, and was not given adequate time to assess the responses to his/her "on-the-fence" vote. You executed closure on the discussion without comment of your own; and in the spirit of neutrally determining the value of Wiki Articles, I'd like to garner your rationale before proceeding to WP:DELREV. Thanks in advance --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Closers weigh arguments, not count noses. Cursory keeps like "significant... output of published works" have significantly less weight when you have a comment like DGG's that actually demonstrates how the publications aren't significant; your own arguments were likewise clearly addressed and rebutted by multiple commenters favoring deletion. The debate was relisted twice and lasted 22 days, compared to the standard 7; I see no reason to keep it open for even longer. Feel free to go to DRV. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you restore the full history and retain the redirect per WP:PRESERVE I will probably DRV this in the future. Based on my research the subject is not notable as a paranormal phenomena (which is how it was written violating WP:NPOV), however it is a notable plot device used in fiction. I will rewrite it as such. Valoem talk contrib 04:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Userfied to User:Valoem/Time slip. T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I've added tons of sources and changed to focus to fictional plot device. Let me know there are any issues. Valoem talk contrib 07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 August 2015
- In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors
- In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia
- News and notes: Re-imagining grants
- Featured content: Out to stud, please call later
- Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration
- Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report
Deletion review for Greg Laughery
I have asked for a deletion review of Greg Laughery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, and/or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)