TUSC token 0b59228b9d55f658b15a2fa9c42d1fdd
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Deletion of DWWQ
Hi and Merry Christmas, I would like to recreate the article DWWQ because I will post a new content of that article. Its because I can't post in that article because of the decision of delation of the article. Can you allow me to post a new content of the article, Thank you. 17:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Nikbert16:: I suggest you create a draft version of the article first (please read Wikipedia:Drafts), to ensure that your article on the topic doesn't get deleted for the same reasons that the original did. 'd be happy to review your draft once it's up and give you my opinion on whether it is likely to survive. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
- @Lankiveil:: I posted a draft of the article and you can review it now. 17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
- @Nikbert16:: Okay, thanks. I suggest you add some reliable sources that discuss the station before going forward, at the moment all we can establish for sure from what's in the article is that it has a broadcast licence. Every statement must be referenced to a reliable source. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
- @Lankiveil:: I added some reliable sources to the draft and you can review it now. 17:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
- @Lankiveil:: Can I ask if the draft is ready to become an article? 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC).
- @Lankiveil:: Good day, can I ask if you can review the draft and it is ready to become a article. 17:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikbert16:: The Manila Bulletin reference is good, but one or two more like that are probably needed to make it clear that notability is met. The various Facebook references on the other hand, are not valuable in this case; anyone can write stuff on Facebook and call it authentic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC).
Constitution of Australia: Talk
Hi Lankiveil: in 2011 you intervened in Talk: Constitution of Australia to reduce #15. "Abdication of King in 1936" to "show" only. Could you please do the same for #1.1 "Another point entirely"? Wikiain (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi.. although this wikipage has been deleted, it still exists on Wikipedia as part of the user Mmyotis' user page, suspect references and all:
To be noted is the user's connection to a multi-cited website source, (sustained action/reaction), where said user has moderator/admin permissions. Vested interests apart, is this page continuation permissible under Wiki's rules/guidelines? If so, it would seem to be rather odd and some feedback would be appreciated.
(I was directed to you by User:Mojo Hand).
- I have to concur with User:Mojo Hand on this one, it is permitted to develop drafts and other content out of sight deep in the user space. The page could be proposed for deletion using the Miscellany for deletion, but I'm skeptical over whether a consensus would be found to delete it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC).
Deletion discussion Morrow, Kemp, Ellenbogen
Hi Lankiveil, you recently closed the AfD discussion here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Herbert_Kemp You decided to Delete Ellenbogen, without giving an explanation and retain Kemp, commenting that you felt that most participants were overlooking him. It must have been difficult to follow a discussion on three different individuals, and I think that you may have been slightly wrong in your comments. I think there was a fair bit of discussion about Kemp and that most participants overlooked Ellenbogen. As the creator of the articles I argued Ellenbogen's notability as a legal writer of key UK reference works. I also admitted that the article could be improved to reflect this. No other participant discussed this apart from one other who just said they disagreed. Since deletion I have taken the trouble to improve the Ellenbogen article, justifying his notability as an author and adding the key references and would like to see the improved article re-instated. I would be happy to show you the updated article. Graemp (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:Graemp, I've reread the nomination and I'm afraid that I think the consensus was fairly clear to delete Ellenbogen's article. You were the only one arguing to retain it, User:Clarityfiend and User:JTdale specifically asked for that particular article to be deleted, User:Necrothesp was a bit more circumspect but didn't advance any particular argument to keep that specific article. I'm happy to put the text of the article into the draft space for you if you wish, but I think the consensus was pretty clear to delete it for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC).
- I agree with you about User:Necrothesp but I would interpret the contributions of User:Clarityfiend and User:JTdale differently. User:JTdale, an Australian based user, agreed with me that not being a UK resident with access to UK sources such as The Times Digital Archive made assessing the merits difficult. User:Clarityfiend a Canadian based user also suffers from the same handicap as was demonstrated in the discussion. Ellenbogen was a regular contributor to The Times, writing on legal matters and a search of the archive revealed 80 results. I accept that as you are also not a UK resident, you probably won't be in a position to see this either. Aside from Ellenbogen's coverage in The Times, they key to his notability rests with his contribution to the legal reference work the Constitutional Laws of Great Britain. Given that the discussion's advocates for deletion did not include either a UK based user or a user declaring to have any knowledge of law or the British legal system, it is not surprising that the significance of this work was not known to them. My request for re-instatement stands along with my offer to let you see the updated article. 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Could I ask you to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djoir, which you closed as keep? The only outright keep !vote was from the SPA page creator (who cast multiple bold !votes and occupies most of the AfD thread). One other person said "Keep or incubate" deferring to whether the sources are deemed reliable, and the last was only in favor of "incubating". Clearly there is no consensus to delete, but I don't think there is consensus to keep either (move to Draft namespace seems most agreeable). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. I'd see it as no consensus between those two options (but emphatically not delete), I wouldn't object if someone were bold and moved it into draft space. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC).
Hi, in response to your message on behalf of ArbCom about the above case, two things. First, my very brief response to the initial case request will be my "evidence". Second, I request removal as a party. My involvement was almost non-existent. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)