User talk:WilyD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)

Hi Wily, it has been shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen that this Afd you recently closed had been heavily rigged by sockpuppets; see group 2 at the SPI for names. Please consider reviewing your closing result. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Hello71

You blocked User:Hello71, who has been trolling, whether deliberate or not. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I did, though that was long enough ago I don't recall why. One seemingly pointless edit doesn't concern me, unless I'm missing something? WilyD 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My notification should be sufficient, and I wish that you need not trouble yourself further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on Yaqub

Hi, WilyD i have seen your reverting here the redirect has no useful incoming links as here and is also holding up a move therefore i believe it should be deleted. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is holding up a move that is of article Islamic view of Jacob the page was prior occupied by this article and therefore it need to be moved to its place again. see here --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will start a discussion on the talk page and have a consensus if there is no one negating the move then will you going to help me with the move?? -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Tom Cooper (author)

May I bother you to place a copy of Tom Cooper (author) at User:pdfpdf/Tom Cooper (author)? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something in particular you want? The content is mostly all from http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/profile.aspx?ID=3441 - well, I've restored the rest, but the original article also had the description from there copy-pasted at the start, but I'd rather not restore that bit to Wikipedia, given that it would be a copyright infringement. WilyD 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Thanks.

b) Is there something in particular you want? - No, not yet, thank you.

I wanted to see what had been there so I could determine how much work was required to create an acceptable article.

It seems the answer is probably: "quite a bit of work".

but I'd rather not restore that bit to Wikipedia - Fair enough. (Particularly given that I can easily look at the original.)

Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained: Plato's laptop

Yes, but what about Aristotle's box file? Was it quarto, A4, legal or foolscap? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing

Please consider re-opening this AFD and allowing another administrator to close it. You clearly have an opinion on the merits of the article, and as such, you need to vote in the process as an ordinary user, not cast a supervote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing. 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Pork in Scoop

I tagged Fried Pork in Scoop as R3, I hope you don't mind. There are only three Google results; two have site errors and don't work and the other suggests we should also be tucking into Toast Chicken within Details. I think it's Chinglish—funny, but ultimately not worth keeping. --Noiratsi (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone looked for it once, and was motivated enough by not finding it they felt compelled to make an article, my expectation is that it's not likely they'll be the last person to do so. Redirects are actually nicer to the servers than deleting them, so it's not typically worth deleting them when readers are better served by them existing (if only occasionally), and the server is, too. WilyD 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I've put it back how it was. Thanks, and sorry for the fuss. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the student just happened to mention you in a survey about the assignment, I suppose just to recognize you for being helpful. S/he did not list any reason why.. I'm sure the behavior was along the lines of any suggested behavior to a new editor. :) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Lizaso is a real person

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Y4McldzJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvu8NU5qlKw

http://blip.tv/diversity-news-tv/boy-lizaso-from-lizaso-haute-couture-presented-red-12-12-12-holiday-fashion-holiday-fashion-and-awards-show-honoring-l-a-s-most-fascinating-people-2012-6479334

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=470812835772

http://www.filipinovillage.com/show-image.asp?id=183

http://diversitynewsmagazine.com/2012/12/lizaso-haute-couture-presented-red-12-12-12-holiday-fashion-and-awards-show-honoring-l-a-s-most-fascinating-people-2012/lourdes-duque-baron-and-boy-lizaso/#.UN2GB299LSg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideVital (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you search online and find out who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideVital (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment

Hey, I just had to drop a quick note of thanks for that comment on my RfA... "Insufficient love for baby Jesus is ridiculous" made my day! I needed that smile. —Darkwind (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to comment

While i'm certainly not going to challenge your decision or anything, I just wanted to comment that in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robb Alvey (2nd nomination) discussion, considering all the Delete votes were made by SPAs who had never edited before trying to get the article deleted (and the IPs could presumably also be the new accounts, I didn't bother to check) and whose only argument was "non-notable" with no explanation whatsoever besides the amount of sources that kept getting pulled up, it probably should have been a Keep decision. Silverseren^C 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since they'll probably try to use the no consensus decision as an excuse to try and get it deleted again in the future. Silverseren^C 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll see about adding in the rest of the sources I found and discussed in the AfD to shore up the article some more. Silverseren^C 22:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AFD closure

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, may I ask why you did not consider the WP:NOT#NEWS argument (which is policy compared to WP:N), or the transwiki option that was given? --MASEM (t) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello WilyD: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco 7600

I don't understand your justification for resolving this as a redirect to Cisco Systems. There does not appear to be consensus for this. In absence of consensus, the article should not be deleted. -—Kvng 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:N is a strong argument. Combined with the point that a merger would be unsuitable (it'd created crazy undue emphasis within the article), redirecting is really the only outcome left. WilyD 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say but I believe your role is to decide whether there's consensus to delete not decide whether the article should be deleted. Only the nominator makes a strong WP:N argument. -—Kvng 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Chevrolet

I think Multi Chevrolet is a dealership in New Jersey based upon a WP:SET and should not be a redirect. Mkdw ^talk 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw ^talk 09:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kostasneymar

Hi WilyD. I think you close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kostasneymar may be premature, considering that my notification at Talk:P.A.O.K._F.C.#A_lot_of_stuff_in_userspace_nominated_for_deletion six hours earlier may have been the only notification of editors who may have been interested in the content. Although probably unlikely, some of the content may have assisted editors in improving the article P.A.O.K._F.C.. Unless someone was quite sure the matereial was unusable (the nomination reads as slightly tentative), I think a relist, just in case, would be the right thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a very good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glider (aircraft)

Hi Wily, just letting you know that when you moved Glider (aircraft), you didn't close the move request, so it was still showing up on WP:RM. I went ahead and closed it. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Jackson (clergyman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Ferguson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request deleted article

Hi, WilyD. You recently deleted the articl Without A Face (band). I think I can help the original author whip the article into shape, if you could send me the deleted article. Thanks. Natt the Hatt (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can definitely make that better. Natt the Hatt (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check

Hello, I think you're an exprienced editor, would you plz check Arsames (band), seemes like a non noable article to me. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

I like your closes. Eg. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kerr deletion nomination

Frankly, I don't really care one way or the other of the outcome, but I don't understand what is sensible about a redirect to an article where the title of the redirect (in this case, the name Christine Kerr) is never even remotely referred to. You may have your reasons, and maybe good ones too; or you may have not understood the rationale, but 'not a sensible reason' makes me sound like a roaring idiot for making the nomination. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent CSD attempt: Arthur Mooring

I recently nominated Arthur Mooring for WP:CSD#A7 (my first deletion nom, so please forgive any mistakes), and from your declining edit summary, apparently I’d missed any claims of notability. I didn’t see anything in the article showing that he’s notable, and I can’t seem to find any sources that say much beyond that he was alive. Should I try another nomination, or am I wrong in the first place? —Frungi (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t sure whether you’d prefer me to respond on my page or yours; maybe consider a banner or something at the top of your Talk? Anyway, thank you for explaining. Seems I misunderstood the criterion. I PRODed the article, and that appears to have spurred some source gathering, which (even though I’d never heard of the man or anything about him) makes me happy. I thought about removing the notice since it now has sources, but I didn’t want to risk interrupting the apparent beneficial effect. —Frungi (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Subway in popular culture

I noticed that you used a headcount argument in a close here (something specifically not a part of Wikipedia:Consensus). Can you explain to me how you could determine based on quality of argument that the consensus was to keep an unsourced trivia list?—Kww(talk) 01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always tried to weigh arguments according to whether a plain reading of policy supports them or not. Can you explain to me exactly how you believe this article is based on independent, third-party sources, as WP:V has always required? Note that today, WP:V contains "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ". Random trips through the history tend to come up with the sentence "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for the last five years.

Presented with this same set of arguments I would have closed as delete or merge. None of the keeps are based on policy, my delete is based on a plain reading of policy, and the merge votes shouldn't be dismissed: there are only three sourced items in the entire article, so merging them would not be particularly onerous.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did WP:V become "best practice" as opposed to policy? I know I'm pissing in the wind on this one, but please don't describe my argument as "bizarre".—Kww(talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly verify that the TMNT lived in the subway from primary sources. Only coverage in independent sources would indicate that that fact is actually a meaningful component of an overview of the subway in popular culture. If the material in an article is primarily attributable to primary sources, it fails to meet WP:V. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" isn't an idealism that should be glossed over. It's fundamental policy.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that you confuse the purpose of WP:N and WP:V. WP:N operates in relation to topics, and WP:V works in relation to content. I would be a fool to claim that no decent article could ever be written about the impact of the New York City in popular culture: as a topic, it passes WP:N. As content, though, this article cannot be sourced to independent sources, and WP:V indicates that the content of an article must be based on independent sources. A delete doesn't say "never write an article on this topic again" it says "the contents of this article are unsalvageable", which I think is a fair assessment of a list of random movie and TV scenes. A "merge", preserving the three properly sourced facts and placing them in the parent article, would be a reasonable compromise. You base your argument against the merge vote based on the concept that the majority of the article would get copied over, and that's precisely what shouldn't happen. I'll give up on this one, though: a DRV would be overwhelmed by people that don't have a problem basing articles on primary sources, despite policy to the contrary.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good closure. Its always important to follow the consensus of those participating in the AFD, instead of ignoring that and just casting a supervote to delete something you don't like. Dream Focus 15:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my request to delete Afreaka !

Hi, I asked to have the Afreaka ! article speedily deleted because its name is wrong (has a space that should not be there) and because the article Demon Fuzz, which is proposed for deletion, covers the topic better. I think the Demon Fuzz article will survive AfD. Was I supposed to wait for the AfD discussion to time out before asking? You wrote

Declined There's no way duplication should result in deletion here. If the consensus is to keep the content in the parent article, this should be a redirect. Or, the content might be moved from the parent article to here. EIther way. But deletion? No

I highlighted "here" because it sounds like you didn't notice (or I didn't convince you) that the article is under a wrong name. I think I was created that way because the editor who made it is French, and in France they use spaces that way. If there's to be a separate article about the album, it should not be written with the space because the band is not French and didn't name the album that way.

I asked for the redirects Afreaka! (the proper name) and Afreaka pointing to Demon Fuzz but that was denied too:

This is a matter for the AFD, not for a redirect to be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=536875761&oldid=536875144

I asked about that at User_talk:Mdann52#your_comment_about_my_redirect_request 24.24.214.15 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the band article is going to be kept (which looks likely), the properly spelled redirects should definitely be kept. Redirects with plausible typos are usually kept at WP:RFD, redirects with implausible typos are usually not kept at RFD. Someone who searches for, or links to, Afreaka! should definitely be sent to Demon Fuzz, not just told we don't have anything on the subject. I'm not sure how plausible Afreaka ! is ... without being certain of the origin of the typo, I'm reluctant to delete it (e.g., if the album cover has an unusually large space there, that might create that impression, it makes sense to keep it.) WilyD 06:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering! The editor who created the Afreaka ! and Demon Fuzz articles is using a French-sounding handle and the English Afreaka ! was translated from an article with the same name on the French Wikipedia that has since been deleted (I wasn't involved). The French set off punctuation marks with "extra" spaces that way; you can see spaces before the colons in the body here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afreaka_!&oldid=535991708

Since writing to you, I learned that there's such a process as moving an article. I've asked for that and gave some evidence at Talk:Afreaka_! showing that the space shouldn't be in the name. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]