Jump to content

User talk:Nakon/arc15: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 262: Line 262:
:{{tps}} {{non-admin comment}} Hi {{u|DTEwikipedia}} - although I can't answer for Nakon, you may find a couple of answers to your query [[Wikipedia:Notability|here]], [[WP:GNG|here]] and possibly (I'm not so sure) [[Wikipedia:Notability (music)|here]] -- [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 19:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
:{{tps}} {{non-admin comment}} Hi {{u|DTEwikipedia}} - although I can't answer for Nakon, you may find a couple of answers to your query [[Wikipedia:Notability|here]], [[WP:GNG|here]] and possibly (I'm not so sure) [[Wikipedia:Notability (music)|here]] -- [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 19:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
::Hi DTEwikipedia, you are welcome to create a [[WP:HUD|draft]] article in your userspace with the new sources and then request that it be moved to the main article namespace. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<span style="color:#C50;">'''Nakon'''</span>]] 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
::Hi DTEwikipedia, you are welcome to create a [[WP:HUD|draft]] article in your userspace with the new sources and then request that it be moved to the main article namespace. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<span style="color:#C50;">'''Nakon'''</span>]] 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

== Thank you Nakon ==
I hope such disputes wouldn't happen again in any wiki pages as it can reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. However, I thank you for disabling the page from edits. [[JCPOA]] is a hot topic of debate inside and outside of Iran and U.S., so I believe data presented in its page should be based on correct citations of both news and international organizational bodies' websites with timely updates. At the end, the nature of such debates and disruptions can be both political and accidental wars that preferably must not take place.

Regards,
[[User:Vahid_alpha|Vahid]]

Revision as of 09:07, 26 May 2016

To add a new message, please click HERE
Archives
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 :: 7 :: 8 :: 9 :: 10 :: 11 :: 12 :: 13 :: 14

you're back!

Welcome back! You've been missed! :-D Katietalk 09:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of pi

I'm not sure if you're watching Talk:Pi, but I think protection is the wrong move there. It's clear that User:Takahiro4 is acting disruptively (he is technically over 3rr, and has been reverted by no less than four distinct editors). I think he should be blocked and the page unprotected so that productive editors can continue there. I've written at greater length at Talk:Pi. I would raise this at ANI, but I think this way is less drama. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayawada Metropolitan Region

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayawada Metropolitan Region had some useful info at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#UA_v_Metro. Can it be taken into consideration or comments should be made at the specific page?--Vin09(talk) 03:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for consideration, but it needs to be made at the AFD page. That's why I extended it for another week. Thanks, Nakon 03:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buondi caffè

Need guidance for future posts. I understand G11 criteria, don't understand how it was used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buondi_caffé, but not here: Nestlé_Toll_House_Café

Hello, The page was removed under the G11 criteria as the article contained a large number of external links (11), which suggested it was promotional in nature. This is in contrast to the 4 external links in the other article you proved. Thanks, Nakon 23:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I have a second chance to improve it? ie, can it be undeleted? Or for the same article, do I have to start new? If new, can I send it to you for review before going live? Thanks

Hello, I've restored the article and have placed it in your Userspace at User:WorldofCoffee/Buondi caffè. Feel free to edit this draft and let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you're back online

In a previous request [1] which you perhaps missed, I asked you to make a correcting postscript to your comments here [2]. I'm sorry to bother you again, but I really do need to ask that you do that, given that, standing alone as that thread does, it gives a completely incorrect impression of the situation. Thanks. EEng 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'd be more than happy to add a correction. Would you prefer I strike out the section or add a separate comment below the archived thread? Nakon 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both would be nice. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I want to make clear that no act of seppuku is being requested. And stay away from the cough medicine. EEng 03:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that these comments will help. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Nakon 03:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Honor has been satisfied. EEng 03:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Khilafah Philippine

Why is this article deleted, that too with no notice period?

Hello, the Ansar Khalifah Philippines article was removed as it met one of the criteria for speedy deletion, namely criteria A7. The article did not indicate why the specific group had a credible claim of significance. If you would like to update the article, I can restore it to your userspace for further development. Thanks, Nakon 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Hi,

Could You actually invest some time and see who did what wrong on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map instead of just blocking the page fro whole 2 weeks!. Having page blocked for 2 weeks is much greater problem then having a few stubborn users editing it. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have to invest your time. Only 2-3, the same users, are constantly breaking the rules because they want to force admins to block others for editing the page, thus making it go away eventually. DuckZz (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've decreased the protection on the module. If the edit warring continues, please let me know so further action may be taken. Thanks, Nakon 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon Ok, here. The user "Pakal" broke the "1RPD" rule (1 revert edit per day), instead of 1, he reverted 9 times in 24hours. Here, Here2, Here3, Here4, Here5, Here6, Here7, Here8, Here9. And by the way, he is the reason why the protection module on the page was changed in the first place, because he made 10 edits without provind any source, or providing unreliable sources. Now he is reverting other users (who are cleaning his edits) becauser they haven't provided a source. This shows that he's playing stupid, before and continues. DuckZz (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has been blocked by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thanks, Nakon 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

If you would kindly remove the protection from Jordan article, we are almost reaching a consensus on the talk page and I feel like editing something in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the protection on the article. Thanks, Nakon 23:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to review and approve my request for rollback rights. I'll repay by greater effectiveness in countering vandalism! -- Jmc (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I'm trying to fight back vandalism by a political PoV pushing IP. Rousseff is still the President of Brazil, even though her powers & duties are currently suspended. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm afraid that I have no insight into that particular political issue, so on the surface it appears that there is an ongoing edit war. Neither of the parties appear to be providing sources either way, and with a lack of sources I'm unable to ascertain if the edits may be vandalism. I would, of course, be willing to review any reliable sources you may have that would show the IP's edits to be vandalism. Thanks, Nakon 03:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an IP, persistently inserting Michel Temer into the article List of Presidents of Brazil, even though he's not President. Anyways, I'll let others weigh in on both those articles. I' don't feel like getting blocked, over troublesome IPs. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to work with you on blocking IPs that may be vandalizing articles, but I would need to see sources that support the position you're endorsing. Unfortunately, without that context, this looks like a 3RR situation. Nakon 03:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Thanks for being reasonable and not giving me a lifetime ban. Yes I vandalised all right but I really was drunk yesterday, I had half a litre of brandy while watching the Eurovision and it made me start feeling silly and facetious. Not to be repeated, I served my ban. Eyes forward from here. Thanks. Marvixo (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Numerai article

The article was put up for deletion in under 30 minutes after creation. I had not even finished adding all the sources. I do not believe that the AfD-requester was either knowledgeable about the topic or took the time to find other sources. I spend 8 hours on creating this article.

"The Financial Times source seems to be the only available independent source. Fails WP:GNG."

The Financial Times was not the only available independent source, there were at least 5 editorial sources.

These sources were "Significant coverage": not merely a one-sentence mention.

"Reliable": The sources were editorial and are used to source other articles on Wikipedia without problem

"Secondary": The sources were secondary.

"Independent of the subject": The sources were created of their own will and not simply PR.

"multiple sources are generally expected": And multiple sources were provided.

The article may not be sufficient to stand on its own, but then it could be added to other, more general pages.

So there is no strong case of it failing WP:GNG.

"A case of WP:TOOSOON, I think. I'm fine with it being moved into Draft: or User: space: It's possible that substantial coverage will appear in reliable sources independent of the FT, but who knows? WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. "

This comment was added after numerous editorial sources were added to the article.

WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL talk of unreleased movies, while this is an active and already functioning company.

"DELETE as clearly too soon, not nearly a year old and there's not enough imaginably of course."

What is clearly too soon and why is this a rule on Wikipedia? What should have changed for it to be not "too soon" in a few months? Notability is established by sources, not topic age right?

"There are something on the order of 10,000 hedge funds in existence. The truly notable ones have been around a long time and hold assets measuring well in excess of $1 billion. Here, the subject holds 1.5 million (not billion), which the article says was raised just last month. The modeling contests that they sponsor do seem interesting, but I don't see it as enough to get the subject past the notability criteria."

The truly notable ones, like Renaissance Technologies, have actually funded this company... The fact that they have a fund is not the notable part, the fact that they host crowd-sourced competitions on encrypted data is notable (This company is known in Bangladesh...). The subject trades with an unknown amount way more than 1.5m, the 1.5m was funding for the company, not the cash used for trading.

I am very disappointed once again in the notability deletion process. I'd like this to be judged on knowledge-ability on the subject, not someone who feels it is "too soon", or who says it breaks a totally unrelated rule, or who gauges notability to what the absolute top in the market is doing. That way a budget movie can not be on Wikipedia (because blockbusters have billions).

You are just doing your job, and I am -- probably annoyingly -- venting. But this is very discouraging as an author. Consensus may have been reached, but the argumentation was weak. Will try again in 6 more months, with, no doubt, a few sources added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

Best Rolly Jodger (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comments regarding this article's deletion. I do apologize that I removed the page after you invested the time in creating the article. Based on the comments in the AFD, a majority of editors felt that the article was not yet ready for inclusion. I would be more than willing to restore the article into your userspace so it could be edited further. The article could then be re-submitted for inclusion. Please let me know if you would like to pursue this restoration. Thanks, Nakon 04:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Peoples Choice Awards protection

Hello, an unknown user deleted my request to have the 42nd People's Choice Awards article semi protected (I have since reinstated it), and I want it that way because of all the edit warring going on with it. I hope you can hear me out on this. Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:5029:271:DF84:AEEB (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semiprotected for 3 days. Thanks for bringing the removal to my attention. Nakon 05:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. When you get a chance, there is a ticket that has been in your queue for awhile. Thanks!--v/r - TP 19:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've sent the user a response. Nakon 01:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europa League

Hi. Galatasaray is fifth placed in turkish league. Thanks Ionel141 Ionel141 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See duck User:Owensucksatgarageband2 back at same article. Meters (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked the account. Nakon 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nakon, your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Eyes Crew (2nd nomination) was incorrect and in contradiction to the consensus of the discussion. There is no precedent, policy or process against speedy renomination on a non-consensus AFD. IF you do not think consensus was achieved please relist it but "No changes to article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting." is not a valid reason for another no consensus close only after a week. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I stand by my close of the AFD as the original one had continued over a month without reaching a consensus and the new one was relisted the day after the close. There weren't any substantial comments on the new AFD which would suggest that the lack of consensus changed, so I closed it as "no conesnsus" to prevent another month-long discussion. I would welcome you to appeal my close at deletion review if you feel I am in error. Thanks, Nakon 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I have submitted an appeal at WP:DRV. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A message of thanks

Greetings, I thought I'd send a message of thanks for semi-protecting both the Hall of Game Awards and the 42nd People's Choice Awards articles. Those two have been subject to edit warring for a while now, and I am glad you were able to take action. I just wish StealthForce and a few unknown IPs who are behind the edit warring would know how to stop..... thank you once again. 2601:601:4002:E260:55C6:9EAA:146D:35 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this, but it was a clear delete prior to 20 minutes before the close. The keep voter also claimed that a student magazine was RS, and our policies on WP:NBAND criteria 1 specifically say that that is not the case. Therefore, I think it needs to stay open to address the points. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the additional information. I will reverse the close and relist the AFD for another week. Thanks, Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting article

Hi, can I get Trevor “Qu1ksh0t” Henry restored to my userspace. The AfD is here. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Moved to User:Prisencolin/Trevor Henry (commentator). Thanks, Nakon 04:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nakon. I see that you recently protected the Erica Kane article because of Cebr1979's disruptive editing. The Todd Manning article needs that same protection. It was previously semi-protected from his edits. And, yes, it's him. He likes to pop up at my talk page during these cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REVDEL request

Hello, Nakon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nakon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers N3rds

Hi Nakon,

I recently created the page for the musical Numbers N3rds, which was deleted because it wasn't notable.

Recently, the musical has been written about by several large newspapers and websites (the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, and BroadwayWorld.com), which I think make it notable enough to merit having a page. I would like to recreate the page and include these sources to demonstrate its notability, but the page with the title says to contact the deleting administrator (which I believe is you) before recreating the page.

Can you please advise?

DTEwikipedia (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (Non-administrator comment) Hi DTEwikipedia - although I can't answer for Nakon, you may find a couple of answers to your query here, here and possibly (I'm not so sure) here -- samtar talk or stalk 19:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DTEwikipedia, you are welcome to create a draft article in your userspace with the new sources and then request that it be moved to the main article namespace. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nakon

I hope such disputes wouldn't happen again in any wiki pages as it can reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. However, I thank you for disabling the page from edits. JCPOA is a hot topic of debate inside and outside of Iran and U.S., so I believe data presented in its page should be based on correct citations of both news and international organizational bodies' websites with timely updates. At the end, the nature of such debates and disruptions can be both political and accidental wars that preferably must not take place.

Regards, Vahid