User talk:Eventhorizon51

Archives (Index)

1 2

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Pepper has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Pepper. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Pepper (February 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sam Pepper and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Eventhorizon51, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Prod of non-English articles

Hi, I've noticed you have just proposed deletion of three articles listed at WP:PNT, with the reason that each had been listed for more than two weeks without progress. I thought it was worth noting that they had only been listed for eight days (ചക്കളത്തിപ്പോരാട്ടം) and nine days (the two Somali articles) respectively, so a bit short of the two weeks. Don't worry, I won't be opposing the deletion though, because the authors still have one more week to get around to translating (which they probably won't). You may wish to notify them of the nominations though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AtHomeIn神戸. Thank you for catching my mistake. Even though I said in my prod rationales that they had been there for two weeks, I was looking on my calendar at the one week mark. I didn't even realize what I was doing until you brought it up. I'll leave the prods there for now since it will be two weeks by the time they expire, but I won't nominate them for deletion again if anyone removes them before then. Thanks again for letting me know of my error. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 05:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized article with similar name

Hello,

The page was already wrong when I tagged it. That page needed to be deleted.Yamont (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Eventhorizon51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #15914 was submitted on Jun 06, 2016 20:50:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello Eventhorizon51. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Michael Holohan. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To piggyback off this, while it's not wrong to tag things for speedy deletion with your own reasons, VOTO Support could've easily been tagged with a G11 tag as it was clearly promotional---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patar knight. I was actually thinking of tagging it as G11. However, that article didn't seem to me like it was "promoting" anything per se. It seemed like a page that a person or group of people would use to manage something internally. Because of this, I wasn't sure it would strictly meet G11. Then again, I knew for sure it wouldn't survive deletion. That's why I tagged it with a custom rationale. If these types of articles are in fact within the scope of G11, I'll be sure to tag them correctly in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the now-deleted page had lines such as "The page will be used as reference documentation for anyone requiring detailed info about the Support function at VOTO." It's basically a "Welcome to the VOTO support page", and I would say that crosses the line into promotional territory in this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Why You adding redirect to this Page? to District Page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhuri&redirect=no this is a separate city in sangrur district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.68.145 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

117.205.68.145 The original article was poorly sourced and did not meet notability criteria. Just because the place exists doesn't mean it should have an article. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Security issues in Colombia#Requested move 14 June 2016

I was surprised by your close of the above linked RM discussion. Could you expand your closing statement to explain why you believe no consensus has been reached and why relisting is inappropriate? With only a single largely-refuted oppose that fails to point to any specific information in the article about non-national-security security issues, I struggle to see how a close as no consensus without relisting makes much sense here. Thanks for your time. ~ Rob^Talk 15:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob. First of all, it doesn't seem like that requested move received much attention to begin with. It only got two votes before it was relisted and only one more pile-on after relisting before the relist had elapsed. So there was not much to go off in regards to consensus. Also, WP:RM#Relisting specifies that move discussions should not be relisted more than once, which was why I chose not to relist it. As for the result, I feel that consensus was not reached in that discussion because I thought the opposer had a valid point in opposing the move. Their argument was that the articles proposed for move didn't fully cover everything in the scope of national security; they only covered the issues, unlike the articles at National security of China and National security of the United States which cover not just the issues but national security as a whole. I thought this was a decent argument contradicting yours, so I decided on no consensus. (Perhaps "National security issues" would work better in than either of the proposed ones, but that wasn't proposed). Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. With three editors in support and a single dissenting opinion, there seems to be a rough consensus in favor of the move in the absence of substantially stronger arguments on the opposing side. You stated "I thought this was a decent argument contradicting yours, so I decided on no consensus", but a closer's personal opinion of strength of arguments are not how consensus is determined. The persuasiveness of an argument to other participants in the discussion is hugely important to determining consensus, but the persuasiveness of an argument to the closer is not. Opinions should be discounted if they contradict policies or guidelines, but I don't see that as being relevant in this particular discussion. As a sanity check: PanchoS, would you mind taking a look at this and letting me know if I'm going nuts? ~ Rob^Talk 03:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I concur. While the dissenting opinion does have a point, the argument would only be convincing if put forward in favor of an even more specific title such as National security issues in Colombia. The fact that food security, corporate security or insurance shouldn't be within the scope of the article however wasn't contested at all. --PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok BU Rob13 and PanchoS, I've taken another look at the discussion and thought about the points you made here, as well as revisited the policy and guideline pages regarding consensus. I must say, both of you have made credible arguments. There does seem to be a rough consensus to move the page, given that the supporting side (the two of you) were not convinced by the opposer and refuted their argument to the best of your abilities. I'll go ahead and change the close and move the pages. If the opposer disagrees with this close, they can start a discussion at WP:MR. I appreciate both of you being WP:CIVIL and discussing this with me calmly. I also especially appreciate Rob for telling me something about consensus I've never seen in the past. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you being open to reconsidering. As a side note, if you were convinced by the opposing argument, there's always the option to vote oppose even if you came to the discussion with the intent to close. I do this quite often, especially at WP:CFD. If I find myself wanting to make a close primarily on strength of arguments, I always take a good 5–10 minutes to distinguish between strength of arguments based on unambiguous policies/guidelines and strength of arguments based on my own opinion of what's best for the encyclopedia. If it's the latter case, I participate in the discussion rather than closing it. ~ Rob^Talk 13:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Xârâcùù language

Any chance you could undo your closure at Talk:Xârâcùù language? Everyone who expressed an opinion preferred simply "Xârâcùù" as the title. Jenks24 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: is there a reason the close needs to be undone? Why not just modify the close and move it to the title that actually gained consensus (which I can certainly do)? Also, the page was already moved when I closed it, so I thought the discussion was already done and I just added the close templates. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that would also be OK. You should always read over a discussion before closing it – if you had done so in this case you would have noticed several people commenting on the move being made, but the RM being kept open because it was done early and discussion about a third title was going. I don't mean this to come across as rude because I appreciate you are trying to help out, but maybe you should consider participating more in the process before you make closures. Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Right. I'll admit this was a careless mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to look more closely in the future. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 16:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses here. I'm sorry if I was overly harsh above, but from personal experience I think sometimes it's easier to get a handle on all the nuances of a process as a participant rather than a closer. Just something to consider, it might be different for others. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover right

Since you have closed many RM discussions such as Talk:Xârâcùù#Requested move 22 June 2016 and Talk:National security of Colombia#Requested move 14 June 2016, you should consider adding a request for the page mover right at WP:PERM/PM. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)