User talk:I dream of horses

Did I reject your draft?
Read the links that the decline message has provided. Note that I am not obligated to re-review/accept your draft, and that any requests do so will either result in denial, or your draft being rejected again if you proceed as though I am required to do as you ask.

Did I mistakenly revert your edit?
Apologies if it's true. Review whether or not you're using edit summaries, or whether or not the content you're adding is neutral and referenced. Keep in mind that we all make mistakes if you decide to leave a message. Please note that legal threats or personal attacks will certainly lead to another revert and possibly lead to you eventually getting blocked.

Methods of contacting me
I'd suggest seeing if your question isn't already answered above or at my FAQ section to save everyones' time. Pinging me at your own talk page by leaving a message with {{Ping|I dream of horses}} somewhere within it. Emailing me. Leaving a message below

This user has opted out of talkbacks

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

A message from Tomehr

Hello,

Please review deletion for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing.

The topic was called a hoax and claimed to include insufficient or sub-par references. The topic is real and describes a discipline practiced by many individuals, including myself. As far as references, I'm not sure what is expected from an article about a kung fu style. I did include references to 2 books, 1 of them published by University of Hawaii Press. It is also noteworthy that many other articles of this sort exist for other kung fu styles, and I believe this article to be of higher quality than many of its counterparts.

Thank you for your times and please advise.

Tomehr Ben Johanan Tomehr (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tomehr: We expect an article not to get deleted via "article for deletion" nomination, and if it does, we expect people not to recreate the article without substantial improvement.

Other kung fu articles haven't been deleted. We can't delete them speedily, and they are of a quality where no one has thought to nominate for an articles for deletion. Expectations will be lower for them.

In otger words, even if I were able to review the deletion, I'd probably end up agreeing with Anthony Appleyard.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Tomehr and I dream of horses: Do you want me to undelete it and AfD it? 23:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Why would you need to do that?  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Tomehr and I dream of horses: To let people who know more than me about kung-fu, decide if the article is useful or not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Did you check to see if the article was substantially different from what the deleted version was? If it was more or less the same, then consensus has already been reached, and there's no need to repeat the process. If it deviated from the deleted version enough, you would've had the right to restore it without hesitation; at worst, it would've been forgivable if the article ended up being deleted later.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard and I dream of horses: I understand the logic behind speedy deletion of articles that are similar to ones that have been deleted in the past, but the fact is that the original article has been wrongly deleted in the first place. The original article was deemed a hoax, despite links to it from other articles, parallel articles in other languages (including Chinese) and the simple fact that it is an actual martial art practiced by many people. There are sites, forums, blogs and Facebook groups dedicated to practitioners, there are martial arts schools around the world where students train etc. I added an academic reference that references to a primary source - this itself is way beyond what should be expected from this sort of topic, a fact that in itself makes this specific article more "credible" than many other kung fu style articles. I think it could be great for others to contribute to this topic and also to edit or criticize, but there is absolutely no reason to simply remove the entire topic.

@Tomehr: The fact is, Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing, a large part of which is consensus. The AfD process is part of consensus-making.

Also, it's based on reliable sources, which Wikipedia (even other language Wikipedias) and Facebook aren't. This is because, respectively, Wikipedia doesn't cite itself for accountability purposes, and user generated content is not reliable. Also, keep in mind that there are articles that fall through the cracks to various degrees, but that doesn't justify their poor quality existence.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses:OK, so nothing I said justifies a Wikipedia article. Like I said, the consensus to delete the article was mistaken. If you are claiming the article is of poor quality, I do not understand the basis for this claim. Assuming this article did "fall through the cracks", and that we don't want that to happen, what should be our next step?

@Tomehr: You can put it in a userspace sandbox and see if an admin would agree it's sufficiently different from the original article to justify it being moved to mainspace. I'm not an admin, so can't see deleted content.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses:Thank you, I will look into that. Who is the admin, and how can I put the article there now that it is deleted? I is important to note that the reason this deletion needs to be reverted is not that the new article is significantly different than the old one (though it is greatly improved), but that the deletion of the old article was a mistake. Is there any way to contest the consensus to delete the original article?

Please comment on Talk:Intelligent design

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Intelligent design. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)