User talk:WilyD

Talk:Muhammad

I do hope you can tell I wasn't being serious. I was quoting children's TV shows and dead politicians, after all. Besides: The people who leave those kinds of messages (Shouted Demands, as I think of them) never come back to discuss the issue. There's no way the person who left the message I replied to ever would have seen it.—chbarts (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the pages I marked in my user space. I appreciate it. Will Maltby (talk ⁄ contributions) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Thank you for reading through the contentious MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) and closing it. Your closing statement was:

The result of the discussion was Weak keep - large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page. WilyD 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the assessment of the consensus in full: that "large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not". However, I believe that that assessment leads to a different result than "weak keep".

Robofish (talk · contribs) wrote, "Remove the soapboxing content." He was explicitly joined by Beyond My Ken and myself who revised our positions from "delete" to "remove the soapboxing content" and implicitly by the editors who considered the "large chunks of content [to be] problematic" per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG.

There is a long-standing precedent that MfD is the proper venue for reviewing pages that have both problematic and unproblematic content. See for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag in August 2011.

In July 2010, there was a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. More recently, the issue was discussed at the RfC Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of userpages? (July 2012). Taking into account the discussions in July 2010 and July 2012 and MfD precedent, the closer wrote:

I am closing this discussion with the outcome: There is clearly no consensus to adopt the proposed language. A misleading announcement may have distorted discussion somewhat, but most of the editors commenting are experienced and must be presumed to have read the proposal they are commenting on. This will not stop MfD discussions of pages based only on parts of the page content -- a page containing inappropriate content for user space is not automatically off-limits to MfD simply because other content on the page is appropriate. DES ^(talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider revising your close to "The result of the discussion was remove the large chunks of problematic content and keep the large chunks of unproblematic content"?

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deleted

If my personal page has been deleted before, can I create it again and keep it blank? DarkFireYoshi 02:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Xray Crystallography

WilyD, are you going to finish the move of Portal:Xray Crystallography? The deletion tag is still in place and at least one subpage has not been moved. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miju language

Hi,

Could you revert (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored) ? It looks like those were changes in the redirect, and so don't belong in the article history.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong edits. It now looks as though the article was repeatedly deleted[1][2] and restored.[3][4] That never happened, and so is a false history. Look at the last edit: you only moved the article, but the diff shows you creating it. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll ask elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Corvus energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Foss and AMPS

Doctor Browning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WAG

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Continual recreation

Hello, Kannan29 (talk · contribs) continues to recreate an article, Vinothkannan, which you deleted less than an hour ago. Could you possibly salt the article and give him a firm warning to stop? Appears to be an autobiography as well. Cheers, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask him nicely to stop recreating it, but it just appeared he was ignoring the warnings. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NM, you did it. Although it still does appear to be an autobiography, so I'll drop a nice note under what you said. Doesn't matter, we'll see what happens. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Manchester

The places I requested for deletion have the tag "Greater Manchester" which is a metropolitan county but the boroughs within that county are main government areas. The category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Districts of Greater Manchester has one subcategory which deals with Manchester city itself but I think there is room for subcategories covering at least some of the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester. I realise that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Geography of Rochdale is also a subcategory but I don't think it would be wrong to have a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Places in Rochdale category instead. I am still looking through to see which places could fit where before I create subcategories, because it is plausible that some boroughs might not have enough articles to warrant a separate subcategory. I felt some of the names should reflect the boroughs rather than a metrpolitan county which is only used for ceremonial purposes and some sharing of inter-authority services. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I used Twinkle for the request, which might be the source of the problem. As it happens I've lived in Oldham, Leeds and Bradford so I know the kind of stick-in-the-mud type of folks you mean. That said, if you feel unable to complete the request it is no problem. I can live with it. Green Giant (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your close on "List of Zoey 101 characters"

Hi, can you consider amending your closing rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zoey 101 characters ?

First, I think the consensus does actually lean toward merge in the discussion. In addition to Shooterwalker's comment and mine,user Postdlf's 2nd comment makes it quite clear he doesn't support unconditional "keep" and rather agrees a merge is appropriate. Even if Postdlf did not change his bolded recommendation, AfDs are based more on discussion than on strict voting and I think this comment hasn't been taken into account in your evaluation as it should have. Beside, Jclemens' and DGG's comments blatantly contradict every single piece of guideline we have on lists, that is, WP:LISTN, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Could you elaborate on what strength you found in these comments that made them prevail over the 3 supporting a merge per actual guidelines ?

Second, with your reference to Wikipedia:Article size and the article being over 60kb, you seem to be overlooking the fact that a large portion of these 60kb is unsuitable (as shown in the discussion) and likely to be removed whether the article is kept or not. Thus I don't think Wikipedia:Article size is relevant here and it probably shouldn't appear in your rationale.

Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. However I still disagree that keep is numerically stronger, as I have said, Postdlf's argument is in favor of merge, AfDs not being based on votes but on arguments and discussion. I also disagree that that keep would be stronger policy-wise, for 2 reasons:

1) Wikipedia:Article size is an editing guideline, and as such, only deals with questions of size, not content. As the nomination made it clear, the AfD was based on content and notability issues, not on size. The only relevant guidelines are thus WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The list is not notable according to WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and the latter explicitely recommends a course of action (merging) in case of absence of notability, not merely suggesting the list "isn't ideal", contrary to your claim (and if a guideline says the article "isn't ideal", why then don't you mention that in your rationale ?). WP:LENGTH, because it doesn't state that any article would become notable when reaching 60kb, is not relevant enough here to have any bearing on AfD outcome.

2) I have not seen any keep supporter advancing the argument of WP:LENGTH. You're the only one mentionning it, and your interpretation of the editing guideline doesn't seem consensual considering the obvious contradiction with content guidelines that are more relevant in this case. As such, you can't claim that you're merely upholding policy against merge arguments that would clearly go against policy (because that isn't the case, policy actually recommends merge and not keep). Is that a case of supervoting ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so at first you say ""Keep" is [...] policy-wise stronger (Article size says you probably need to split it" and then "Article length also really isn't much of a consideration in my close". Your two statements are contradictory, and so I'm still not seeing why you would say keep is policy-wise strong if the policy it involves isn't much of a consideration in your close. You're still not clear as to why WP:LENGTH would take precedence over WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT anyway, or why you apparently ignored Postdlf's 2nd comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still refusing to answer my two simple question, thus I will request DRV.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese

Hi WilyD. I was wondering if you'd be willing to rephrase or reconsider your close on this AfD? The current wording of your close makes it appear that you believe that the sources presented by NorthAmerica1000 and Milowent are notable, and thus you discounted comments pointing out their lack of applicability - in other words, it looks like you're placing a supervote based on your interpretation of the sources, rather than interpreting the consensus on the AfD. Commenting that people who supported a merge option were somehow misunderstanding the discussion and that thus you also discounted them also seems fairly non-neutral. I'm assuming these things are more artifacts of the way you phrased your close than of you actually having placed a supervote close, but it would be really helpful if you could expand your close to address the basis for your decision beyond "the delete voters misunderstand, and also didn't they see the sources the ARS presented?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was fine close. Most people said keep, and that the sources were fine. Consensus was obviously keep. Do you see where it says "Comment – More sources:" and then list things labeled "significant coverage"? Anyone who spent time reading through them would see it gave significant coverage, and the fact some people didn't understand that justifies the closing administrators comment about their comments "appear to be more guesses as to what one expects than an analysis of the article and situation." Dream Focus 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, Dream Focus. Half the people voted Keep and half voted Merge. Therefore, it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted p b p 19:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't a count. Its based on the strength of arguments. Dream Focus 23:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Pizza cheese

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pizza cheese. 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.

I view the decision to essentially ignore the roughly 40% of people who voted merge as improper. The proper close would have been "merge", "no consensus", or relist p b p 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choseng Trungpa

Hi WilyD, Concerning the article deletion. I discovered that the article was lined up for deletion by clicking on the 'What links here' in the toolbox of Choseng's article. There you will find this link: User:Cyde/List_of_candidates_for_speedy_deletion not a bot page, but a individual's page where they use an imperfect 'tool' to find deletion candidates. Following the protocol I have added the banner to prevent this article being deleted. As soon as Cyde has removed the candidacy the banner can be removed. If you can help to see that this is carried through that'd be great. Thanks.

Thanks for your attention and concern WilyD. I will leave the Admin User User:Cyde a message to mention that the banner is no longer there. I think his bot would have removed it soon anyway. Best wishes, Fountain Posters (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SD of "Sleep Rape"

link

I marked this page as a CSD for the fact that it was vandalism. My justification for this, which I feel compelled to provide, is that it meets a few criteria:

Duplicated an existing topic (AGF, so didn't mark it solely for that)
Used very biased points of view (again, AGF)
Had absolutely no sources
Was a very short article
Seems a lot like original research (sign from "Slut Walk", consent cannot be provided by someone who is asleep)

For these reasons, I decided that the page was vandalism. At the very least, I believe it should have been SD'd as a duplication of an existing topic. I do see your viewpoint that it wasn't vandalism, but I would appreciate it if you could go back and take a second, thorough look at it. I welcome your feedback, and thanks for reading this little short note!

Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Deletion??

Hi WilyD! I had created an article on J.H.Tarapore School yesterday and found out today that it has been deleted. When I researched a bit I found that the reason was for 'promotion' or 'advertising'. Let me tell you that this page was about a School in India and it was certainly NOT USED FOR PROMOTION OF THE SCHOOL. So let me request you that please do the needful. Thanks. --ΩΨ Soham Banerjee ΨΩ 04:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]