User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 6

Western Infirmary Cologne Club

Re the Western Infirmary Cologne Club. I note that this page was deleted. The Western Infirmary Cologne Club is an illustrious social club for surgeons in Glasgow. Memebership allows its members to use the letters MWICC after their name. An example can be seen on the back cover review for the following book; MRCS Practice Papers Part A: Paper 1 SBAs, by: Mr Irfan Halim ISBN: 9781905635610.

I believe this page should be reinstated to wikipedia.

iainmcgraw@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgraw52 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The way forward is to to produce a new article, in your user space, which shows that this club has had substantial editorial coverage in reliable sources. WP:ORG and WP:CITE refer. I should then be delighted to reinstate the page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Chaz Jankel

Hi, could you move the page to this title, please? There is a redirect, but this is by far the usual spelling, so it annoys me! Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann Talk Page

its been a long time since iv gone on there, noticed your message and i do have a picture of the newpaper cover what was used on the 100 days, if you are still interested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly would be pleased with sight of this. TerriersFan (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lydgate Junior School

You deleted this article that I prod'ed, or rather made it a redirect. I have no problem with this, as it is clearly not notable, but technically a prod should stay for 7 days before deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting point that I have not considered. However, I do not regard a redirect as a deletion since it can be undone as an editorial action. The problem is that if prods are allowed to expire and get deleted then they disappear from sight. I continue to think that redirecting, merging content where possible,is the most pragmatic way forward. It also allows any editor who thinks that a standalone page is justifed, to undo it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke Silverscape (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Anthony & The Imperials

Hello again. Could you move this to Little Anthony and the Imperials, please? Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To whom do I send the bill? :-) TerriersFan (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm skint, but profuse thanks. I have a feeling there was yet another... 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivium

Hello, again. Would you care to intervene at Aoxomoxoa? Rothorpe (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Been away but assessed now. TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Mary's Academy, Lalazar, Rawalpindi. (SMA)

As you suggested, I have modified my suggestion to be good with either delete/merge or redirect/merge. I don't know the Wikipedia technicalities, so I didn't realize it made a difference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that someone has now tagged the article for speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the speedy tag - I don't think that is an appropriate approach when an article is already involved in an AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. Somebody closed it as a redirect, just as you wanted. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British University American Football AfDs

Hi, as you have participated in a number of these AfDs, I thought you might also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plymouth Blitz (BUAFL) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Collegiate American Football League Pit-yacker (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Huddersfield Literature Festival

Hi TF. It isn't really my subject, but I have given it a head start and I hope I've provided sufficient Notability to save it from deletion! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

West Yorkshire Derby

I think this one is within in your sphere of knowledge than many! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have a look at it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shreve

Re Israel Shreve. I notice TerriersFan attempted to delete the Wikipedia page for Israel Shreve before the article was finished. The updated page lists five references for a high ranking officer in the American Revolution who fought in several battles. His son and regiment both have their own Wikipedia pages. Israel Shreve is a proper subject for a separate Wikipedia article and I request that deletion is not repeated. If TerriersFan wishes to edit to allow the second half of the text to be seen, please do so. You may respond to my talk page if you desire. Asburyparker (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I deleted the redirect Israel shreve which was the incorrect initial capitalisation. I have no interest in the article itself. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the two articles. The separate articles were, of course, accidental. Don't know how it happened. The edit page said "delete" Israel Shreve so i assumed it was the entire article being deleted. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asburyparker (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Terriers, I recently made a suggestion on WT:WPSCH, but the only reply came from a friend who is not actually directly concerned with schools. I do quite a lot of work on schools (not only in the UK) and I have two concerns:

1. There are 320 or so people listed as members of WP:SCHOOLS, but as Keith points out, not only do the majority not seem to be very active at all, but some have never, or hardly ever posted on Wikipedia! Do you think we could split the list into active and non-active members? (I could do this).
2. I would like to canvas some of the recent, regular, active members to make either a UK Schools task force or daughter project.

FWIW, I have experience in Wikiproject work - I created and run one (WP:WORCS). I have experience in schools - I founded several and ran them (they are not listed on Wikipedia).-Kudpung (talk) 11:19 am, Today (UTC+7)

I should be happy to support that. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA where you may have valuable insights to offer

Hi. It looks like your activity is only intermittent these days, so you may not see this any time soon. However, I want to call your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mandsford. Since Mandsford has been an active participant in many of the same types of AfDs that you participate in, it occurs to me that you might have good insights to offer at the RfA. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brown bread (disambiguation)

The article Brown bread (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only two articles use this page, where Brown bread can more easily simply directly refer to the second article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Topperfalkon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir Walter St John's School

I note you changed the title to SWSJ Grammar School which was its final title (not necessarily the correct title). As the school used the title without "Grammar" for over 130 years, but only 43 years with it, I believe the former to be more correct. I have not altered it, but feel the new title is limited.

DonJay (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Taurus the Cat

Not an obscure pop group that I want moved, but a user, a kid I suspect, who is being drearily persistent at Sunspot. As always, many thanks for your kind attention... Rothorpe (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Amarillo, Texas)

As an administrator and member of the school projects, I would like to know how you feel about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Andrew's_Episcopal_School_(Amarillo,_Texas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copritch (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi TF. Please take a look at this thread. There is probably no need for you to get involved in the one AfD it concerns, My interpretation of notability for schools is based on the premise and widely practiced notion that primary (elementary) and middle schools are not inherently notable, but as a compromise, they are offered the opportunity to be merged and redirected to their school district or locality, rather than either being outright deleted, or taking up editor time at AfD because of weak attempts to rescue them.

As I am currently caretaker of the almost dead schools project, with the input from others, I've recast most of the pages for clarity, and I'm in the process of crafting something to get the WP:WPSCH/AG page accepted as an official guideline (at present it still apparently only has essay status). I would therefore very much welcome your comments on this issue. Please reply on my talk page if you can. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing

Hello, I have noted your absense and added you to WP:MW. Please feel free to remove yourself should you ever return. CT Cooper · talk 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Darfield Upperwood Primary School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darfield Upperwood Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darfield Upperwood Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TheGrappler (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Relieved

Nice to see you back TF. You've been missed, and several editors were getting seriously concerned. --Kudpung (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is nice to see your still around TerriersFan. CT Cooper · talk 11:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to see you back on my talk page---I left a reply there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

An invite

Not often there is a special event in Derby for wikipedians TF. Do come along it would be good to meet. See here Victuallers (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AZ boarding schools

I came across this long list of abusive boarding schools. It lists quite a few, including Canyon State Academy, Copper Canyon Academy (on the to-do list), Oak Creek Ranch School (on the now-very short MEA list) and several we do not have, plus Spring Ridge. How do I trust this source or what it says, though? Raymie (t • c) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That site is not, of course, a reliable source. However, it does provide a basis for further exploration. The way forward would be to carry out a Google search on the establishments listed coupled with some of the incidents/accusations to see if you can find reliable coverage that can then be added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Freddie and the Dreamers

Another ancient pop group, another row. One of the participants (apparently in both) has left a note on my talk page. You may wish to intervene. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)---Excellent, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this. Perhaps no longer needed? Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Farnell01

Hi, regarding User:Farnell01, I thought that when you block a user indef, you don't blank their talk page, instead you just put the indef block template at the top of their talk page (if this is not the case, you can leave me a message), thankyou. Round Maple (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I also looked at this edit, so it appears that the vandalisum has been removed by another editor. Round Maple (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page is normal for blocked vandalism-only accounts when review is improbable. In less clear cases then the procedure you describe is better. In any case, the history remains available for interested editors. TerriersFan (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I noticed was I was looking at the pages that linked to Guisley Secondary School (assuming that the AFD notice would sill be on User talk:Farnell01), so that I could find the account neme and vandalisum on Guiseley, but it looks like it has been removed by another editor as I cited above. Round Maple (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Round Maple is one of dozens of socks of User:Crouch, Swayle, and has been blocked. Creates stubs about tiny English hamlets, and mass creates dozens of worthless redirects. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did wonder because he displayed an advanced view on policy that was unusual for a new user!! TerriersFan (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Are you aware of this and this? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Whatever happened to the policy of only the strength of the arguments mattering?! LMAO. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask the closing admin for a detailed justification and then possibly take it to WP:DRV? TerriersFan (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How does that work? Am I (or anyone else) entitled to a detailed justification? IOW, is it something that an admin. closing an AfD has to be prepared to write should anyone request it, or could my asking him that simply be interpreted as my questioning his integrity and put him right on the defensive? You appear to have walked this road many times before, so how do these issues normally play out? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Any editor can politely ask a closing admin for his reasoning and for him to reconsider his close; this is normal. He closed with this statement "Arguements for deleting have stronger basis in policy, guidelines, and general practice regarding single-game articles. As well, there is very little support for keeping this as an article." You can ask him:

a) did he disregard those !votes that said "per previous AFD" which was based on a different draft?

b) did he disregard those !votes that said "not notable" without explaining how the page failed WP:GNG?

c) how did ""Arguements for deleting have stronger basis in policy, guidelines," when the page met WP:GNG and the only other policy-based argument WP:NOTNEWS was debunked?

d) why did he not consider 'merge' which had good support?

If the answers are not satisfactory then you can go to WP:DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm a bit ambivalent about the existence of this particular article since its author (and some other folk who I know have argued for its existence in the past) could not be bothered to even show up to vote in that AfD. I decided a week ago (4/15) that that AfD was probably a lost cause and that I didn't need the hassle I was getting contributing there, so I quit posting to it. Then I realized I had not even voted in the AfD discussion myself, but had only made responses to other people's comments, so on 4/19 I went back and placed my vote. Not that there was really any debate going on ... the outcome of that AfD was done and dusted the moment it was opened. Based on what the AfD adjudicating admin. wrote in his closing comment I have no confidence that he even read 90% of what was posted - he appears to have simply made the knee-jerk decision that was expected of him.

The problem I have now WRT this AfD is that, if I pursued its overturning along the path you just outlined, I would simply be perceived at each stage as some kind of fanatic - after all, 50% or more of the text in the AfD was generated by me - that cannot accept due process nor consensus. My current feeling is that if prior creators of the article are too apathetic to defend its existence then it probably doesn't deserve to be in article space, whether it satisfies Wikipedia policy and guidelines or not. BTW, based on the arguments presented for deleting that article, the two "Battle of Old Trafford" write-ups that are currently in article space (which I mentioned in the AfD) should also be deleted. There was nothing notable nor significant in footballing terms about either of those two games. But I suspect that none of those people who voted to delete or merge the Spurs-City article will be slapping an AfD on either of those two articles any time soon. I wonder why that is? Take care. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this issue some more over the last few days, it strikes me that even if an AfD was overturned via WP:DRV, anyone who sided with the "deletion" vote during the AfD could simply slap another AfD on it within hours of any decision reinstating the article, or even use the DelRev process itself to overturn the previous DelRev. In the AfD discussion I argued for the right of AfD-ed articles to be recreated after suitable improvement (and thus no deleted article on a reasonable topic should ever be considered to be immune from recreation in the future), so surely the same consideration has to also apply in the other direction, and articles restored after DelRev cannot similarly be considered to be permanently immune from further AfDs in the future. IMO a likely outcome of a successful DelRev process would be, sooner or later, another AfD for the article, with the article also possibly ending up on the "list of perennial requests". Are things as bleak as I perceive them to be?

WP:DRV states, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." (my emphasis added). A good portion of that AfD debate was taken up by the nominator trying to "promote his viewpoint" not by recourse to intelligent and logical argument backed up by reference to pertinent Wikipedia guidelines, but rather by a continued sequence of accusations of malfeasance on my part in recreating the article, which clearly fit the descriptions of "attacks on other editors", "casting aspersions" and "making accusations" (although in my case, they were not accusations of bias). In the Afd I asked this person a number of times to cease doing what he was doing, to retract his statements, and to have all of that text moved out of the AfD debate (my suggestion was to the Talk page) since it waa quite irrelevant to the discussion, but instead a case of his trying to score points via ad hominem attacks on my character. If I understand that above quoted statement correctly, all of the nominator's actions in that area of the discussion should have resulted in that AfD being speedily closed. I'm not sure where any of that gets us, but it does indicate to me that Wikipedia guidance isn't worth the paper it's not written on! Which is another reason I'm not very motivated to pursue any of this. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As an Administrator I can assure you that there would be zero chance of your beng blocked by going to DRV nor would the closing admin be offended - this is just a normal procss. The only caveat I would make is that the procedure requires that you politely ask the closing admin to reconsider, with reasons, first. If the DRV overturned the decision as 'keep' there would not be an immediate AFD; and if there was it would be speedilly closed. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My receiving a block is not my main concern here. I didn't join Wikipedia in order to pursue confrontation, so I simply don't want the aggravation involved in taking this issue any further. I've just wasted considerable time and effort the other week posting sound logical arguments in defense of that article (which is what you are meant to do in an AfD, rather than only voting your preconceived opinion or devoting most of your words casting aspersions on others) only to see it closed by an admin. who appears (based on his own closure statement and actions) to have based his decision more on his own preconceived ideas rather than after due consideration of the presented debate.

If he had actually read the text on the AfD page with due diligence (in order to make a fair judgment of the presented arguments) then he would have known to fix my links in it to the "speedy delete" discussion on the article's Talk page (all of which got deleted together with the article) which was the point of entry for that AfD to even exist. That text was clearly part and parcel of the presented arguments in the article's defense and to allow it to be deleted in that manner is the equivalent of that admin. going through the text on the AfD page and removing bits of text he disagreed with in order that his ultimate decision would make more sense. If he doesn't understand that his actions can be construed in that manner then he shouldn't be an admin.

Wikipedia has lots of documented policies and guidance in place that, when you read them, make a lot of sense. However, when you observe on a regular basis the obvious intent of these documents being perverted and twisted in practice by other editors and admins. who are more concerned with getting their own way, or in scoring points off of others in order to feed their own egos, one becomes very disenchanted with the whole Wikipedia project. It isn't at all what it claims to be. If you personally feel that this AfD stands a good chance of being overturned, why don't you pursue the issue yourself? If you take the lead in such an effort I'll support you wherever I can, but I'm not going to be your patsy - which is effectively the role I've just been playing in arguing for the existence of that article throughout the AfD process, whilst the person who actually wanted to see the article back in article space couldn't even be bothered to put in an appearance in order to cast a vote in its defense.

You appear to have much more experience in such matters than I and also have the clout of being an admin. to boot. Additionally, your own pursuit of the issue won't appear to be a case of personal "sour grapes" which, whatever my own motivations for pursuing it, is how my pursuit of the issue will now come across to others (since I was the de facto creator of the AfD-ed article and the person that was the recipient of WP:AGF abuse on the AfD page by other editors who took the fact that I supported the existence of the article as a personal affront to them).

Right now, my current feelings WRT that AfD process and Wikipedia in general are best summed up by Jose Mourinho's recent words: "Sometimes I am a little bit disgusted to live in this world, but this is the world we live in." In the Wikipedia world I currently find myself living in, courtesy, logic and common sense clearly carry no muster - unfortunately, those are the only tools I have at my disposal so I can see no real point in my single-handedly pursuing this issue any further. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

Hello, it's me again. I'm getting into an edit war here: a person who says 'shorter distance' is better than 'smaller distance' (or maybe it's the other way round) simply as an excuse to restore his other edits. Perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at this. He now appears to have accepted your 'Sun' edit. In truth I don't think the other issues are worth arguing about so my suggestion is just to leave things be. TerriersFan (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMP Negeri 1 Blitar

Hi TF. I know it looks as if I'm doing an about turn on the way I have voted on some school AfD regarding notability accrued from alumni, but yes, if sufficient alumni have been responsible for significant media coverage in which their school has been mentioned, then of course I'm happy to support your rationale as I have done here. During your absence, CT and I had a lot of discussion about the possibility of clarifying the guidelines for schools and perhaps getting the WP:WPSCH/AG upgraded to guideline status, and we have vastly revamped the school project pages. Your input, time permitting, would be most welcome, seeing that you used to be so pro-active on school issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Bernard's Catholic School, Brisbane

I need your advice in case, as a relatively new admin, I start doing AfD closures. How in your opinion, does Keep: 3, Merge/Redirect: 3, Delete: 2, equate to "Delete" for a school? I'm not bothered personally about the outcome - my question is purely academic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either. Since 'merge' is a flavour of 'keep' the balance of views were clearly against deletion. There were no strong arguments for deletion either. The case against merging is that none of the content was sourced but that could have been easily fixed. TerriersFan (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to kick up a fuss at WP:DRV though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Martins Creek Elementary Middle

The notability claim here is not sufficient to meet notability guidelines. The school lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The ranking is interesting but it's not sufficient to warrant a dedicated article. The article has been merged , in its entirety, the districts article. Please continue to improve it there.--RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of expanding the article. Please stop your disruptive redirects. TerriersFan (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you've more of a claim of notability that the awards listed, I dont see how this is going to meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article. Again, please continue to improve the section on the district's article. --RadioFan (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've created and AFD discussion on this article rather than revert your changes again. I'm still not seing it as meeting notability guidelines and would like to get some other editors opinions.--RadioFan (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A much better option, thank you. TerriersFan (talk)

3RR

I DO NOT appreciate being accused of violating the 3 revert rule and I do not being appreciate being threatened with blocking, especially when the accusation is completely baseless. Both you and I have reverted the page in question twice today, not 3 times.. You have over 37k edits, you should know better than this.--RadioFan (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not been accused of a 3RR violation you have been warned to be careful not to violate. I have reverted your redirect twice which is permissible; you have redirected 3 times which is the limit. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How did you expect leaving the 3RR template on an experienced editor's talk page would be received? As a warning or an accusation? The R stands for Revert, not redirect. I am within the limits and will not revert any changes on this page for at least 24 hours. --RadioFan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Just a reminder, biographies created after March 2010 must be referenced per this policy the BLPProd template should not be removed until references are included in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New infobox for US schools?

Are you aware of this? Is it something that needs a consensus chat? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caversham Primary School (2nd nomination)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under what understanding of that policy are you allowed to insert in Wikipedia a full article which is presumably still under copyright, as you did in the talk page of that AFD? Better to include a link, or to quote the one relevant sentence. Please remove the article. Thanks! Edison (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Edison (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Church C.E Primary School

We really need to get the WP:WPSCH/AG page established as a guideline. There seems to be a rush of primary schools for deletion recently including mass deletions. I'm sure these are all made (and voted on) in good faith, but experience shows that very few users are fully aware of all the complexities of deletion criteria and their exceptions. It needs to be made finally clear whether nn primary schools should be radically deleted, or redirected. Even I am beginning to have my doubts as to what is correct, especially since the highly controversial comments made at length on my RfA. Suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for these points but I'm away from my machine until tomorrow late evening when I'll reply. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghost towns

You wrote in your edit summaries: "...Declined Prod - all inhabited places are notable..." But how do we know they exist?

• PROD contested
• PROD contested

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prods are for uncontroversial deletions - see WP:PROD. Settlements whose existence is problematic are not uncontroversial. The appropriate way forward is to list them at AFD which gets the broadest range of views. TerriersFan (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jadu

Hi, you recently deleted The Jadu as an expired PROD. I don't dispute that; the state of the article deserved the prod, and when it expired, it ought to have been deleted. Unfortunately, I didn't notice the PROD until after the deletion or I would have tried to rescue it at the time.

The Jadu was actually a quite well-known and notable band before its breakup; the article as written did not properly reflect that.

I am asking you to reinstate the article and its accompanying talk page, so I can update it appropriately. I've made a proposed revision of the article at User:TJRC/Attic/Page10. I would just recreate it, but I'd like to retain any edit history for GDFL/CCSA purposes, and any comments that may have been on the talk page.

Alternatively, if you could WP:USERFY the article to my user space, I'll update the userfied copy and then move it to article space. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Now at User:TJRC/The Jadu. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I see a number of Kpop acts were deleted on PROD recently. I haven't heard of most of them, but I may similarly request userfication for Brown Eyes, Clon and Diva (group), each of which were very prominent in their time; but I'll wait until I can be certain that I have material to document their notability. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jadu

Hi -- I believe I may have erred. I saw that a prod was removed from The Jadu. So I sought deletion, as the article has been IMHO non-notable for five years now. But I now notice that the article was removed to user space. If (as I suspect may be the case) it is fine to have a non-notable article of this sort in userspace, having been just created, how do I best undo my AFD nomination? Tx. You can respond here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the MFD for you. As you will see from the section above the user concerned requested userfication of the article to enable him to improve it. This is accepted practice provided that the article only remains in user space for such period as is reasonable for the page to be developed. I suggest that you watch the new page, and assess the version that is moved back to article space, and take it to AFD if you remain of the opinion that the subject fails the notability guidelines. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. I'm glad a good user is looking for a way to improve it. Apologies for the confusion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Quantapoint PROD Decline

I just wanted to thank you for declining the PROD of Quantapoint. The gentleman who created and maintained the page recently left the company. When I found out about the proposed deletion, I signed up as contributor and began the process of learning proper procedures and etiquette for page editing. When I logged on to edit and update the Quantapoint page, I found that you removed the PROD. I will work to improve the page going forward. - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreynolds-qp (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lee Baldry

Where can I see that this has previously been kept at AfD? The current article appears to have been started on 19 May 2011 - so any previously kept article must later have been deleted at some point. And whether or not that was the case, surely this article still comes within the scope of {{prod BLP}} as a newly created article about a living person with no RS. Please explain. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Baldry (2nd nomination) by using "What links here". It was deleted then. It had previously been kept at AfD in 2006. Looks as if I need to take it back to AfD, then. PamD (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that {{prod BLP}} is different from an ordinary prod, so will add that template explicitly rather than just as prod-2 comment. PamD (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Jacobson

This was unnecessary. I don't mind that the A7 was declined, but a "claim" to notability is not a reason to decline a PROD -- not sure if you investigated, but if you did it should be obvious that he is not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fjalor i Gjeologjise

Just out of curiosity, what was your reasoning to decline the PROD on Fjalor i Gjeologjise? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As you will see from WP:PROD, one of the conditions that admins check before deletion is "No objections have been raised on the talk page." When, as here, there is an objection then the Prod must be declined. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was an objection to the speedy deletion, not the PROD. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was made after the speedy deletion was replaced by a Prod and we cut inexperienced editors slack in not understanding our procedures. It was clear that he didn't want the page deleted and that's sufficient to make it not 'uncontentious'. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I had thought it had been there before. Thanks for clearing that up for me, though! Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD of disambiguation page

I noticed that you removed the PROD from the Solarus article stating that PROD is unsuitable for disambiguation pages. However, the WP:PROD introduction states that "Proposed deletion is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages;...". Since you have de-PROD'd it, I'll now take it through AfD. Regards. RJH (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I stand corrected, thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BladeLogic

I see that you removed the BladeLogic page. I totally understand the desire to kill advert spam, but I just heard a reference to the company for the first time in connection with my work, and I wanted to find out more about them. The deleted article is obviously POV, but I think it could be stripped of the enthusiastic language and be turned into something useful. How about reviving the article? modify 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article and moved it to User:Modify/BladeLogic to enable you to work on it. In addition to a rewrite, it needs substantial new references before being moved back to article space. Please note that it cannot remain in user space indefinitely, but only while you are developing it, so please let me know if you decide not to fix it. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of references do you have in mind? I won't have time to do much research for it, I'm afraid. If you think this will be necessary, I think it's fine to kill the article again. 64.175.41.171 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The last reply was made by me when I wasn't logged in. modify 05:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK; I have moved it back to article space as a redirect. The previous content is there in the History in the event that you want to develop the page further. TerriersFan (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BatchPhoto

I understand that Wikipedia is no place for advertisers but BatchPhoto is a legitimate product with hundreds of thousands of users world-wide. I believe that the article was as legitimate as possible without any advertising talk. If it needs additional work/references I will be happy to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmin Unguru (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved it to User:Cosmin Unguru/BatchPhoto to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at Wikipedia:Your first article. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews to support its notability. Being 'legitimate' by itself is not enough. TerriersFan (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects

Hi TerriersFan, Thanks for the notification that you removed the prod nomination from this article - I'm about to take it to AfD if you're interested in commenting. There was no need to remind me to not restore the prod tag though - I'm a long established editor and an admin and was well aware of that rule :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's the problem with using a notification template; I'll manually craft a comment next time. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Beer Man

Just a heads up... you deleted Beer Man, an article on a criminal. I've re-created it as a redirect to an album containing a song by that name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Concordion

Hi TerriersFan, You recently removed an article I added about the Concordion acceptance testing framework. It's frustrating to have spent time writing a clear explanation of the framework, only to have it deleted! I understand that Wikipedia has notability guidelines, but I wondered why you'd singled out Concordion as being not notable enough? Concordion is mentioned in several books on agile software testing (Amazon Search) and seems at least as notable as the other frameworks mentioned on the Acceptance_testing page. Is it too late to restore the page? Thanks, Infrablue (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:Infrablue/Concordion to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Infrablue (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi, thanks for letting me know about your de-proddings, but I always watch the relevant pages so there's no need. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems

I agree on merging, but most of the article is not worthy of being reincluded in the IRV article and I have said on the articles talk page.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WildClaw Theatre Company

Thanks for notifying me of the de-prod. I'm going to see if I can find any reliable sources for notability this week; if not, I'll take your advice and send it to AfD. Yunshui (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge/redirects

If you look at the page for the school you will see that there is no article yet on that particular school district, hence the proposed deletion. Whenever a school district page has been created, I always redirect non-notable schools to that page; in fact, I've done that at least three times in the past week. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Where there is no district page, and you don't feel like creating one, then a merge/redirect to the lowest level locality is the way to go. That, however, is a secondary issue. The main point that I was making was that without a sound deletion reason being specified then Prods will be declined. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted OscilloScoop

Hi, you recently deleted "OscilloScoop" ‎due to: (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable software. No claim of notability. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sourcs.). The software was the top app listed on iTunes Top Charts and has much press coverage and reviews, including winning the "Favorite Website Award." The app has 94,000 hits on google, and here are a sample of independent press links including major news sources like FastCompany:

http://www.creativeapplications.net/iphone/oscilloscoop-iphone-ipad-sound/ http://www.wiretotheear.com/2011/05/03/oscilloscoop/ http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663839/oscilloscoop-ipad-app-turns-electro-djing-into-a-video-game http://www.148apps.com/reviews/oscilloscoop-review/ http://www.thefwa.com/mobile/oscilloscoop

Please undelete. Lavatusa (talk)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:Lavatusa/OscilloScoop to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews, in reliable sources, to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WildClaw Theatre Company

Hi TerriersFan,

I have, as per your advice, listed WildClaw Theatre Company at AfD. It's the first time I've started a deletion discussion; if you have a moment, perhaps you'd be kind enough to check that I've followed the procedure correctly?

Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the listing is fine. It is considered good practice to place {{subst:AfD-notice|WildClaw Theatre Company}} on the talk pages of all substantive contributors. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebbeny Faranda

Hi TerriersFan,

You recently deleted “Ebbeny Faranda” due to: ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable news presenter, lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources). Ebbeny Faranda is a news presenter for Channel 9 News, with co-workers, Louise Momber and Matt Tinney. Both Louise Momber and Matt Tinney have used the same references, which Ebbeny Faranda also had on her Wikipedia article as well as reliable 3rd party sources.

Please undelete. Ebbeny Faranda — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabiM82 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:FabiM82/Ebbeny Faranda‎ to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find substantial coverage, in reliable sources, to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tweedle Dee

Hi, me again with another requested move. Could you change this to "Tweedlee Dee", please? Despite the record label in the photo, it's the usual spelling and the true pronunciation (somewhat removed from Tweedledum). Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice, in passing, that the 'Hall of Fame inductee' link is broken. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that. I think I'll just remove it... Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Left Behind characters

Hi Terriers Fan,

I noticed that you deleted several Left Behind character articles after a proposed deletion was left uncontested. I believe the characters to be sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, therefore I have restored the articles and added references to them to demonstrate their notability. I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me if you decide to start a deletion discussion about either of the articles in the future.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this courtesy heads up. However, I will be taking no further action on the pages. TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebbeny Faranda

Hi TerriersFan,

You recently deleted “Ebbeny Faranda” due to: ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable news presenter, lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources). Reliable sources has now been added to the wikipedia articel. How do I add the article back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabiM82 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Click the 'Move' button; the new title should be: Ebbeny Faranda; uncheck 'Leave a redirect behind'. However, the page simply is not referenced well enough; if you move it across in its present state then there will have to be deletion discussion. All the keys facts need independent sources. In addition reliable sources need to describe her work directly and in detail. YouTube clips do not constitute reliable sources. See WP:Cite and WP:BIO. Useful information is contained in WP:Your first article. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lonsdale Book.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lonsdale Book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Francophone AfD

Would it be considered disruptive to nominate this for deletion again? I agree with your sentiments in the close. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; yes. Though consensus does change, it needs to be given a few months before renominating. TerriersFan (talk)

Chaos Films

Hi TerriersFan,

I am a bit confused as to why you deleted the article of Chaos Films. I cited sources from IMDB.com and our website that showed that the films we created were legitimate. The films that we created were very important and powerful and one was even released theatrically in the Middle east, The Jerusalem Syndrome.

Since we sited the sources I don't understand why it was deleted. I also don't understand what you meant by searching for news articles on Google News. Is that a requirement for an article that you need to have sources from Google News?

Thanks, hopefully I can improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob2005 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Huckaby

TerriersFan I thank you for taking the time to work on the Tim Huckaby article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Huckaby Softdevusa (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)