User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:47, 4 June 2019

♠ New messages to the bottom please. I will reply here without pinging unless asked otherwise.
♠ Please link to articles you're asking about by enclosing the title in [[brackets]].
♠ For undeletion requests, provide 3-4 reliable sources that indicate notability.
♠ Less is more. Walls of text and piles of links will be ignored.
♠ Please don't template the regulars. I don't mind criticism but being templated is a bad way to start a conversation.
♠ This talk page is watched by a few friendly talk page stalkers who may respond to messages when I'm not around.

Archives

Archive 1

Portal:English language

Just a note that after you closed the MfD for Portal:English language as no consensus, the nominator then immediately unilaterally redirected the portal, against the consensus of the discussion. I reverted that and left a warning notice on their user talk page regarding the matter. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Templating a regular for taking a reasonable editorial action to redirect one title to another of exactly the same scope is pretty uncivil. Also my action was in keeping with the close. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. The portal has been immediately nominated for deletion again by the same original nominator. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Northamerica1000, dropping a template like that on anyone who has more than a dozen edits is supremely passive-aggressive, and so was leaving these little notes here. There was nothing in my close that forbade anyone from redirecting or merging the portal. Legacypac, immediately taking it to MfD again was stupid - the discussion was open for almost a month and came to no consensus, so re-opening it immediately is hardly going to change the outcome. Both of you, have a civil discussion about merging or redirecting it somewhere that isn't my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC - since no one is watching the portal page, MfD seems a reasonable place to discuss the need to have two identical scope pages. If you have a better suggestion that will attract reasonable editors to the discussion , I'm open to taking it elsewhere. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mergers perhaps, and maybe leave pointers at relevant WikiProjects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada

Hi. WP:DRV suggest talking with the closer of the discussion before starting a deletion review. The above should have, in my opinion, have been closed early as a speedy keep on the grounds that "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question"

The original nomination was:

Random portal recently created with the "automatic" portal system with few directly related articles and no project to back it up. It links bios like Raymond Gravel implying this Catholic priest is related to prostitution in Canada. It also does not pickup the real articles of this topic like Human trafficking in Canada and Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons or any related bill like Bill C-268 or Bill C-310 its just a portal with somewhat related junk.

Breaking that down:

few directly related articles - about 50
no project to back it up - backed-up by Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force
It links bios like Raymond Gravel implying this Catholic priest is related to prostitution in Canada. In the lede of this article: " he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during that time"
does not pickup the real articles of this topic like Human trafficking in Canada and Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons or any related bill like Bill C-268 or Bill C-310 - This is a prohibitionist view of prostitution (i.e. prostitution = human trafficking ) and therefore WP:POV. This is further backed up by the fact the articles Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons, Bill C-268 and Bill C-310 make no mention of prostitution. Even putting aside the POV aspect, suggesting that the portal links to articles that don't include the subject matter of the portal shows the proposer hasn't read any of the articles.
with somewhat related junk - The "junk" includes GA articles such as She Has a Name

I did request that the discussion should be speedily kept but received no response. (Perhaps I should have made the request somewhere other than in the discussion?) The majority of the replies on the discussion seem to be based on moralistic grounds rather than any objectivity.

In my view this deletion needs to be reviewed as it is now being used as a precedent to nominate other prostitution portals for deletion.

Thanks --John B123 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However you feel about the nomination statement, there was a solid consensus to delete. I don't see a pressing reason to override that consensus by undeleting. By all means take the page to DRV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I do find it ironic that you claim the nominator has a POV prohibitionist view of prostitution because they suggest including articles on human trafficking, but you point to a play about human trafficking in Thailand as an example of the good content related to the portal. Certainly the play originated in Canada, but does it have to do with prostitution in Canada? Hardly, since it's about human trafficking in Thailand. This is one reason why these narrow-scoped portals are problematic; one has to stretch so much to find "related" articles that inevitably a bunch of tangential stuff gets included and the portal becomes an unfocused mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. My point was that the original nomination was so erroneous that the discussion should have been speedily closed. Any consensus reached after a procedural anomaly is irrelevant.

On the side note, there is a difference between sex trafficking and human trafficking. I couldn't find any reliable figures for Canada, but from UK Government official statistics, numerically sex trafficking is a minor part of human trafficking. Agriculture/food production has the highest absolute numbers, and domestic servants the highest number as a percentage of those employed in that industry. (That said, even if it were only 1 person, that would be too many). Suggesting Human trafficking in Canada is the most important article in Prostitution in Canada is akin to suggesting List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots would be the most important article for a portal about JFK: it is included in the article but so is a lot of other subject matter. With regard to She Has a Name, although not primarily about prostitution in Canada, the play was used as part of a campaign in Canada to raise awareness of sex trafficking in general, but also within prostitution in Canada. --John B123 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination by me was not erronious. It is an WP:X3 portal spam creation. Even if we make nomination errors in the clean up of pages created in seconds via an automated script, it is not that big a deal. Go improve the mainspace content which people are likely to actually read, instead of worrying about junk pages like this with no origional content. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:X3 puts a different complexion on matters, however, if this had been made clear on the deletion page it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble. In view of your patronising last sentence, which I find insulting (check out my edit history), I see no point in carry on this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No insult intended to your specific contribution history - I advise everyone to work on articles instead of portals that pull often less than 1% of the views as the article by the same name regardless of the topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac lol - you didn't nominate that one, Moxy did. In any case John B123, I disagree that Moxy's nom was so egregious as to require a speedy keep. Moxy obviously has a more narrow view of what constitutes a related article than you do (as do I), but that doesn't hit the level of suggesting that they didn't read the portal, and definitely not to the level that I'm going to override the consensus that developed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but life would be dull if we all agreed all of the time. This episode has shown me shortcomings in the deletion process. Firstly you can't just rely on just the obvious. Transhumanist's portals are being discussed on three different noticeboards (that I'm aware of). These discussions may not be in harmony. For example, Moxy nominated based on the Village pump discussion, but the WP:X3 discussion tends towards not using MfD but speedy delete. Secondly, there are a group of editors that dominate deletion discussions and generally agree with each other. This might well be perceived by some as a clique who "close ranks" to support, or not, the nominator. However, as everybody is free to join in the discussions, I don't see this as any wrongdoing by the editors involved, it's just how the situation has ended up. The situation perpetuates itself when other editors try to join in the deletion discussions, their opinion gets overwhelmed by the "regulars", so they don't bother getting involved in the discussions again. Not sure if there is any fix for this, but if deletions are controlled by a relative handful of the 36 million registered editors, it might be better to regularise it and have a committee who control deletions. --John B123 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was brought to deletion after Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 170#Are portals being made automatically with an automated system?.--Moxy (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per my reply to Legacypac above, if the real reason for deletion had been made clear in the nomination then it would have saved everybody a lot of time & trouble.--John B123 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "real reason", Moxy clearly outlined their reasons for deletion in the nom. There's no "real" reason except what they already wrote, and I'm not sure it's entirely fair to suggest they were being disingenuous in their nom. Again though, by all means if you think the MfD wasn't done correctly, take it to DRV. There's never anything wrong with getting more eyes on something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

Don't attribute to malice what can be easily explained by error. This is the only edit I intended to make, a simple typo removal. Turns out you had edited it just minutes before, more recently than I had refreshed the page. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, you're right. I apologize. That was a bitchy edit summary and I should've asked you about it first before being a dick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Scholar Education Group

Hey, is it possible for you to view and add to my talk page the entire content of a page you deleted a while ago? not sure if this is against the rules, i would just like to see what they wrote so i can recreate the page better so hopefully it can be properly submitted this time. The page is called " Bright Scholar Education Group ". Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedade (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm happy to do that sort of thing, but that page was the subject of undisclosed paid editing accompanied by sock puppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrightScholarJonathan/Archive) so I would have to see a great deal of independent in-depth references that meet our sourcing guidelines for companies before I would consider that. I have to ask - why the interest in Bright Scholar Education Group? Your only contributions are to a draft about an English teaching company (Draft:Meten English), and here you are interested in re-creating the deleted page of another similar company. Are you an employee, or otherwise being paid to create these articles? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right i am new to Wiki editing, i used to work for a very small company a little similar to Meten english but i have never actually been an employee of either of these companies. Honestly i haven't done much other editing here because i find the entire process incredibly complicated and confusing. I saw that the bright scholar page was accused of sockpuppetry, but at least some of the content should be salvageable and im willing to try hard to reference it fully, and if im unable then i won't continue trying to remake the page. Both Meten and Bright Scholar are HUGE companies here in China and i honestly just find it strange that there isnt already at least a short page about their companies. Hope you can understand my motivations, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedade (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references included in your version of the article do not meet our sourcing guidelines for companies. We require independent, in-depth, reliable sources to prove corporate notability. I have done a search for sources but did not find much that I consider to be reliable (much of what came up was blogs or based on press releases, which are not acceptable sources for companies). I am going to re-list the article at articles for deletion for community discussion, because I do not believe the sourcing is sufficient to maintain an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Guin portal

Hello PMC -- wondering why you deleted this after no discussion? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So fun story, Espresso Addict. I had this response about WP:SOFTDELETE all typed up, and then looked at the date on the MfD again and realized it wasn't a weird leftover from the beginning of March, it was a brand-new MfD that had somehow gotten stuck under the Old Business heading, which I failed to notice. I've reverted myself, undeleted it, and stuck it under March 30 where it belongs. Thank you for catching that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hadn't realised it was transcluded in the incorrect date section. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, no problem. I didn't either, to my shame. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of entry Mahnaz Badihian

Hello, this entry was deleted due to notability. I feel this is in error. This individual is notable in the Iranian literary diaspora. One example is the us government website highlighting notable Iranian-Americans https://ir.usembassy.gov/mahnaz-badihian/. Please advise how to edit the entry to help restore it in English, it continues as an entry in Persian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishkoti (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One source is typically not enough to support a claim of notability. However, since the article doesn't appear to have been overly promotional, I'll restore it and take it to articles for deletion for a community discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for re-considering the entry. Here are additional links this is from an Iranian-American nonprofit supporting artist https://www.aftabcomm.org/mahnaz-badihian . Here is an interview with Italian TV:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1H55oo2X8U Here is a podcast at City Lights bookstore in san Francisco: https://www.citylightspodcast.com/tag/mahnaz-badihian/. Mishkoti (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

SmokeyJoe wanted it archived which is pretty close to delete. That makes it 3/4 [1] Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Joe's historically been very clear on his desire for old things in projectspace to be archived rather than deleted. Nothing wrong with tagging it historical after a no consensus vote if you want to be bold though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT Hide IP address ASAP

Hi please hide my Ip address: [REDACTED - Oshwah] from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Juffali without removing content added if possible. Expunge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantom122 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Oshwah took care of this - thanks Osh :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi F-3

Dear Administrator,

I would like to request the deleted article, Mitsubishi F-3, to be restored into my userspace. The F-3 is a future Japanese stealth fighter currently in development. A while back I created the article but it was nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsubishi F-3, because there was a lack of information regarding its current development (namely the manufacturer, Mitsubishi is only speculated). The other editors declared the article WP:TOOSOON (which I also agree). However, I believe there is still potential for this topic in future when more information is available or if I could find more info from the Japanese Ministry of Defense website. I wish to make improvements and changes based on the other editors' feedback. In addition, some of the editors have stated that the information within the deleted article can be used for the existing Mitsubishi X-2 (a tech demonstrator designed to study and develop technologies for the F-3). Thus, I would also like to use the information from the Mitsubishi F-3 to expand upon the Mitsubishi X-2. Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Meant to respond to the ping on Beeblebrox's talk page yesterday and forgot. It's now at User:I edit things that come to mind/Mitsubishi F-3. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'll strive to do better. :) I edit things that come to mind (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Hey PMC, I saw you were the deleting admin. on the MfD's of Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, Portal:Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Portal:Women's history and Portal:Ulcinj. All of those portals have bunch of subpages as well; can you take care of them or do I have to tag each subpage with CSD G8 myself instead? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks for the reminder. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages II

Portal:X-ray astronomy also has subpages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages III

Portal:Arijit Singh and Portal:Babism also have subpages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, keep finding more: Portal:Brandy Norwood. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, don't apologize, it's all good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Portal:Taito UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Portal:Laurentides and Portal:Robert E. Howard. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shubunkin

Hello. I need some advice. I preliminarily discussed a wrong information at Talk:Shubunkin#Bristol Shubunkin in Japan . After that, I edited the article but that was reverted twice. First time, I thought it's because I forgot to mention the discussion at Edit summary. But second time, I felt something weird is going on. I contacted first editor before I recover the reverted article but no response. Also, I contacted second editor but no response as well. I'm worry about what to do and what not to do. Mechamocha (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to continue to discuss it on the article's talk page. I'm not particularly interested in fish so I'm not a good choice for a neutral third opinion, and there's nothing being done that's actionable from an administrative point of view (no edit warring or personal attacks, I mean). Sorry to not be of much help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it rude to recover my reverted edit again writing "Please check Talk:Shubunkin#Bristol Shubunkin in Japan before you edit" on Edit Summary? Or should I leave a comment on the talk page first? Mechamocha (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to speak to the editor again on their talk page? Your original comment to them was not very clear, so maybe provide a little more detail about the situation. It might also help to re-start the discussion on the article talk page again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it. Thank you. Mechamocha (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best luck :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

My name is Akash jainism, as per following policy ,my user name acceptable or have to change

Akash jainism (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok, I think that other one got bot-flagged because it's just the word Jainism. But yours looks like it's a surname or a last name so that would be ok in my opinion. I wouldn't worry about it unless someone says something about it to you though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanq .I wl continue with this my user name. Below link clearly says religious user names will not be acceptable. [2]

"Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event (including real people).

Do not choose something that might be offensive. Your user name should not suggest that you hold any particular political, religious or other belief." Akash jainism (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a policy from Simple Wikipedia, which doesn't apply here - this is English Wikipedia. Our Username policy doesn't prohibit mentioning religion in your username, as long as it isn't done to mock or offend that religion or its followers, which your username doesn't seem to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for continue discussion...just now i verified some religious user names. All most all religious related user names were blocked for user name violence.

Some examples: Jesus 100, Jesus 100, Jesus 12 , Jesus christ 010, Jesus christ 69, Jainism 20. Akash jainism (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't think your user name puts you at risk of being blocked. It doesn't defame Jainism. It doesn't insult Jains. There's nothing disruptive about it, unless there's some secret insult in the word Akash that I don't understand. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it unless someone came to you and actually said they found your username was a problem. Relax and go edit something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for your quick unblocking of my university. As I clarified in my e-mail to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org, the problem was blocking of User:さとみよ, one of my students, and my university's IP. As for the other accounts listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2/Archive, I know nothing about them. My students are listed here. They could not edit Japanese Wikipedia at all because of IP blocking, but now we can edit Wikipedia. I am very grateful. --saebou (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also confirmed your unblocking. Thanks! Yassie (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm happy to help. It's possible that the other accounts were other students at the university, unconnected to the edit-a-thon, but that's just a guess - I can't say for sure. In any case it didn't look like any of them were being disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Help

Hello - I was hoping you might be able to help me out. I added a logo and some additional data to a Wiki and it got nominated for deletion. Ultimately it was deleted by yourself. I would like to see if I could fix this [[3]] - I added a logo and some additional data and I guess attracted the attention of editors to review it and they deemed that the previous content wasn't notable enough. So it looks like it's my fault the page was deleted. I'm really hoping you could help me to figure out what I can do to fix their page. Can you help me? I'm afraid I hurt the company. thank you for your consideration. Rickwriteson (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your fault the page was deleted. The page was deleted because no one produced enough independent, reliable sources to indicate that the company was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, so the discussion was closed as delete. Generally speaking, the possibility that a company or subject might be "hurt" by their lack of a Wikipedia page is usually strong evidence that they aren't notable enough to have one in the first place.

All that being said, I have to ask what your relationship is to Fit Body Boot Camp - you haven't made any edits since 2015, but now suddenly you're really, really interested in adding data about this company (and only this company) to Wikipedia. It is, to put it delicately, suspicious. Are you being paid to edit this page, either as part of your employment duties or a contract job? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I sent you a message back. You mentioned you got a bounce back, but I did get your message. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickwriteson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies from Fit Body Boot Camp

Dear Premeditated Chaos,

This is Sean Mabry, the Editorial Manager and Copywriter from Fit Body Boot Camp. I noticed you recently deleted our company page and I wanted to reach out to you personally and apologize for the situation.

Recently, our CEO hired an "SEO Expert" by the name Rick Porter to help us boost our search rankings for our company websites. You might recognize him by the username Rickwriteson.

He is the one who made the offending edits -- without any permission from the company and with no prior warning. Now I understand he is still harassing Wikipedia editors about the deletion.

As soon as we heard about the situation, we instructed Rick to cease his edits and make no further contact with anyone at Wikipedia. He has ignored this instruction.

So, to clarify...

Rick Porter DOES NOT represent the interests of Fit Body Boot Camp and he will face consequences for his actions.

Nonetheless, we apologize for any damage he has caused. If there is anything we can do to make amends, please let me know.

I will admit I am not familiar with the backend of Wikipedia, so the easiest way to contact me would be to email seanm@fitbodybootcamp.com.

Thank you for your time, and for all the hard work you do to make Wikipedia useful and reliable.

Sean Mabry Editorial Manager/Copywriter Fit Body Boot Camp seanm@fitbodybootcamp.com

Sean, I will send you the same email explanation I sent to Rick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages IV

Portal:Daddy Yankee, Portal:David Guetta, Portal:Sacred Christian music, Portal:Serials and Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays showcase also have subpages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hemphill Pontiac

Can you undelete [[4]] please? Related to the more recent proposed for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zamaro_camaro_zamboni.jpg

This is NOT a promotional submission, it is historical. The business has been defunct for over 3 years. Please help, i have no idea what i'm doing but would like to set this up as a historical reference. Thank you Jeff

Not unless I see some reliable independent sources that indicate that Hemphill Chevrolet Buick GMC is somehow uniquely notable in a way that makes that one specific car dealership notable per our guidelines for companies. (That is hugely unlikely, but I'm not ruling it out by default). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "...reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published": https://www.journalpioneer.com/opinion/columnists/looking-back-on-caps-run-to-1997-canadian-championship-64784/ https://www.peisportshalloffame.ca/search/hemphill https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/news/take-a-walk-down-memory-lane **(note jersey) https://www.journalpioneer.com/sports/hockey/perfect-team-61595/ http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/sports/hockey/2017/2/15/_perfect-team.html

Thx again Jeff

All of those sources are about the hockey team sponsored by the dealership, not about the dealership. Notability is not inherited, so we can't assume the notability of the dealership based on the notability of the hockey team. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Island

Hi, some ref errors caused by this edit. Not 100% sure which ref name belongs where (as it were). Please can you fix. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed a ref, thanks for catching that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mending that! Eagleash (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages V

Portal:Estrie has subpages. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, c'est complet. Merci. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages VI

Portal:Theosophy has subpages. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

Hey there PMC, thanks again for reviewing this article last year and promoting it to good article status. I've been looking at it again, and wonder if there's anything you can think of that it would help to add, before potentially nominating it as a featured article? It's quite short (it would be the 6th-shortest FA), but I've looked deeply for every source possible (including emailing its creator, Rick Kirby, and its owner, the National Trust—no response from either), and found little more than what is in the article. Is there anything else you can think of to do with this article before putting it up for nomination? Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not really familiar with the FA process (never participated, never put one up for FA myself) so I'm not sure what else they would be looking for. It sounds like you've gotten as comprehensive as humanly possible. The article's well-written IMO so I think all there is is to see what the people at FA think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages VII

Portal:Montérégie has subpages. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Si, it is done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Damned Seattle Compilation

Hi PMC, in 2017 you deleted the article Another Damned Seattle Compilation. I am currently working on an article on the Dutch Wikipedia that is related to the subject of the deleted article. Could you tell me if the article had any sources? If yes, could you provide a list? I don't see sources in this off wiki snapshot but perhaps the snapshot is missing them for one reason or another. Could you also tell me who wrote the article? I would like to contact them. Thank you in advance for your time. Maartenschrijft (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maartenschrijft, it had zero sources at the time of deletion. Swensi wrote the article in 2010, but hasn't edited since then. I can just email you a copy of it if you want. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would like that. It might help me with what I'm working on. Maartenschrijft (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted entry for Rex Features

Hi, PMC,

I see that you are the editor who deleted the Wikipedia page for Rex Features, the British photographic agency.

Rex was founded by my parents Frank and Elizabeth Selby in 1953/4, and was owned and run by them, me and my brother John and sister Sue until 2011, when we sold the business to the managers and staff. Subsequently they sold the business on to Shutterstock inc., which has today finally absorbed the Rex Features business entirely and removed the name from trading.

We (the Selbys) would like to reinstate a Wikipedia page about Rex, reworded to give it a historical viewpoint, so that the name of this significant firm, which was highly respected in the media in the UK and worldwide for more than 55 years, is not forgotten.

Is there any way to retrieve the text of the deleted page? Ideally, we would like an older version, as the content was rather poorly edited by Shutterstock in recent years.

I hope you may be able to assist.

Mike Selby London UK Lordheber (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]