I commend you for your largeness of spirit in fixing all the things that needed improvement in the article's GAR, despite our sometimes pointed disagreements, and I'd like to thank you for your efforts, which were very timely as I was tied up with a few things IRL. Your changes were significant enough that I think that you deserve credit for the article's promotion as much as I do for initially expanding the article. I'm toying with submitting the article for an A-class review once I get access to the ship's biography and would like to add your name as co-nominator, whenever I do that, if you're agreeable.
I'd be happy to collaborate with you if you have any other ships that you'd like to work on; I'd even follow sfn formatting if it's already present ;-) Between us we seem to have access to quite a variety of sources and I think that it would be to Wiki's benefit if we can put our differences behind us.
I do have one question, though; I was just tidying up the article and was wondering why the photographs are cited? Clicking on them will bring up the source if a curious reader clicks through to Commons, so they seem rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: It's nice to see the article as a GA and I would be happy to assist you in getting it to the next step. Admittedly, I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with history articles but I do have talents for research. In regards to the citation in the caption, it was something that I've seen come up in other GA reviews including at least one that I've nominated before. WP:WHYCITE has a brief sentence, "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article." As such, I've always defaulted in doing so, mostly to negate that argument, in case it's ever brought up during a nomination again. Mkdwtalk16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it's me again.
It seems like I didn't explain my question well. What I meant is to add information that I was still at school at my user page. I saw several user pages and they use some kind of a settings that shows important messages that write: "This user is still at school"
Can you help to show me how to make those messages like that? I appreciated your help.
DarryLaz (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A good deal of the time, my comment or !vote is opposed to SwisterTwister's and many I don't respond to at all (such as Crowdrise). There's nobody who can count on my agreement, because I look not at the suggestion, but directly at the article. I used to look at every AfD, but I no longer have the time for that, so I've decided to concentrate on avoiding no consensus because of insufficient participation closes. He is primarily notifying me of these. If you'd like to do that for the ones you run across, I'd appreciate the help. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me this seems even worse. They're notifying you only when they're involved in a discussion that is close making your input more influential than ever. SwisterTwister is a well known deletionist around AFD. They !vote 97.4% in favour of delete/redirect -- or viewed differently 2.6% in favour of keep/merge. You !vote 80% in favour of delete/redirect. That seems like pretty good odds to me to ping you into a conversation that's going to be close, even if I don't know for certain what you're going to !vote. For all we know, SwisterTwister is only pinging you into conversations whereby they assess you'd likely !vote delete or in favour of their way. Maybe sometimes you disagree with them or perhaps quite frequently, but even if the number of times you disagree is relatively frequently, say a third of the time, that's still a two thirds odds for SwisterTwister to get a !vote out of you in their favour. Anything short of 50% is in theory able to be gamed. These are exactly the types of problems that can occur around WP:GAMING and campaigning when it's up to the involved individual to pick and choose which conversations they're going to ping a close colleague into. DGG I have all the respect in the world for you. I don't always agree with SwisterTwister but I also acknowledge that they're a well respected editor in the community. I've participated in the AFD where this issue came up so I can't even say I'm not biased either, but if I had been a patrolling admin and saw this, and it had been anyone else, I may have taken it to ANI. Perhaps you would have been able to demonstrate that it was being done impartially and never even considered these possibilities. But going forward you will. The practice is dubious in principal, even if you two are able to make it work. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not reporting anyone here. I'm offering this advice and if you ignore it that's your prerogative. Mkdwtalk01:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that is not what I said, that I want to be pinged when the decision needs another !vote. I said they are notifying me when there is a AfD with not enough participation to justify closing, especially after multiple relistings. Too many afds end up with one or no people responding to them, a situation which we should prevent if we can. They are also notifying me when a discussion involves something I'm sort of expert in, like citation analysis. If I think I know enough about the field to comment, and have an opinion or want to add some information, I do. Sometimes a!vote, sometimes just a comment. Anyone who thinks the alerts are biased has an easy solution, which is , as I suggested, to send me their own. I almost always respond to any request to look at an article or a discussion. Even if I get to do nothing else that day, I try to respond to questions. But I will keep what you said in mind, because appearances matter also. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdrise would seem to be inconsistent with that request then. The AFD had 7 participants, considerable discussion, lots of policy based arguments on both sides (though seemingly a strong leaning among the participants to one side), and had never been relisted -- before SwisterTwister pinged you into the conversation. Perhaps it would be pertinent to clarify that criteria again with SwisterTwister. Anyway, appreciate that you'll keep it in mind. As I said before, I do trust you implicitly, and it's really more the principal behind how pinging your friends into consensus discussions can be easily abused. I do understand what you are trying to go for though. Mkdwtalk02:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About your help (again)
Hi, it's User:DarryLaz again. I just wanted to know that I really appreciated your help, but it seems like what I was looking for was not there. I'm trying to make the information similar to this user: User:Babymissfortune. Can I ask where and how I can make that kind of information? Sorry once again for your inconvenience.
User:DarryLaz114.125.169.195 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kimberlymyrie posted on my talk page, apparently on a client's behalf, about what it would take to restore a certain deleted article. Since it was deleted as part of the Sunilseth sockfarm, I thought you might like to look into it. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to thank you more personally than just a "thank you" notification: Reading through the Superman talk pager and the previous ANI, spending all that time to do so — I mean, whatever you would have decided, that shows such a dedication, competence and though we're volunteers, professionalism of the kind exemplified by the best and most diligent admins. Thank you for all your work, Mkdw. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I firmly stand by my work, in the interests of convivial relations for the next month I will not make any edit on the Superman article without first running it past other editors. BaronBifford (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After two ANIs and his reversion to his same OWNish behavior within two hours of page protection being lifted, my feeling is that a month is not long enough. He is not going to change. Some at the ANI have suggested a topic ban. I'm not yet ready to go so far as to endorse that, but it's clear to me he needs to run every edit through the talk page for consensus indefinitely — and even that may need supervision, since he recently made a change that was the complete opposite of what I had stated in talk-page discussion, yet in his edit-summary claimed I supported it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenebrae: I'm watching the conversation at User talk:Euryalus. I too am a little bit lost in the process because there was quite a bit of conversation that occurred at Talk:Superman while the article was protected. In the most recent series of changes made by BaronBifford, it's hard for us to distinguish whether or not the changes were discussed or not on the talk page. If you could help Euryalus make that determination then they are the most appropriate party to issue a block if one is warranted. That being said, I do think a block will only be warranted if the changes were implemented (without talk page discussion) and are disputed changes (not on principal but on content). I petitioned at the ANI that any disputed sections on the talk page should not be changed without consensus (intentionally leaving open sections that were not disputed). If they became disputed then these prohibitions and recourse for a block would apply. I recognize that the ANI ended without much of a consensus, but I still feel strongly about this being the criteria for a block. Therefore, I think Euryalus is the one to issue any block if it comes down to it, as I have now a bias on how it should be handled. Mkdwtalk18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I've just commented on Euryalus' talk page, and will return there after work. Much obliged for, and appreciative of, your help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Kayla Day. After that sock @Neebras: started mass creation of non-notable tennis player articles and he even edited the article created by me, which triggered the AFD. Now the article was userfied by you. I didn't want to move it to main space again as the AFd was just few weeks ago. If I would have moved it to main space then Fyunck(click) would have once again nominated it for deletion.
Now another user has created the article so soon after the AFD. I spent my time and energy on that article. I first created that article Kayla Day. She was covered in independent news websites. She was already a pro-player as I even gave link of her pro profile. She was not junior player when I created the article.
If Neebras would have stayed away, then my article would have survived as just after few days she played in US Open main draw. But when I created her article she already a professinal player with world ranking.--MarvellousSpider-Man06:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was closed on 10th August and the article was created on 16th August. These Wikipedians shouldn't harass other editors like this. If I would have recreated the article on 16th August then others would have warned me of disruptive editing and I am sure @Fyunck(click): would have re nominated it for speedy deletion on 16th August, under G4 criteria. MarvellousSpider-Man06:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marvellous Spider-Man: I understand you're upset that the article you worked on was deleted and moved into a userspace. Please understand that it isn't 'your' article. No one has any ownership over content on the English Wikipedia. The article was deleted because at the time the subject did not meet our criteria. The participants in the deletion discussion did note that it was likely the subject would soon meet the eligible criteria and therefore they recommended a draft version of the article be preserved should that occur. It seems that within a very short amount of time from when the AFD was closed, the tennis player did qualify for a very notable tournament and thereby passing our minimum criteria. Rather than the saved draft being moved back into the mainspace, another editor, who likely did not know a draft was being saved, re-created the article. No one deleted the article to be unfair, and no one re-created the article to intentionally slight you. The article about the tennis player now exists; that's the end goal that everyone should have wanted. It would take minutes to merge the stub draft content you worked on with the now mainspace article. Wikipedia is not about using Marvellous Spider-Man's version or another editor's version. We're not in competition with one another. If your objective is to create and publish your own content, then that's not going to align with the goals of Wikipedia. We're here to collaboratively work together to create an encyclopedia. Sometimes that's going to mean using other people's work even if there was a missed chance to start the article or use your own (that essentially imparts the same information). You can still contribute and build a good article -- together with other editors. Mkdwtalk17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of information - systemic bias
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
@Part: If you were seeking administrator intervention on a situation, then typically you would file it at WP:AIV, especially if you're looking for some sort of moderated resolution regarding a violation of a policy. Instead you made a bunch of statements and then declared you reverted it at the end of it all. I essentially took that to mean, I've done this 'for your information' and saw no further action required. Especially when you provided no evidence how or why you thought this was systemic bias and failed to mention that a discussion was already unfolding on Talk:Nelson Mandela where a number of other editors agreed that the section should be removed. Also, if somewhere in all these statements, you have a request, which comes in the form of a question, then I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Do you want this editor blocked? Are you simply seeking a determination from an uninvolved party? Some of these things don't require an administrator specifically. Mkdwtalk15:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Few weeks ago I created an article about a British teenager who has own many Muay Thai world championship and national championship competition.
As I am a new editor, I didn't know about this strict notabilitioes about wikiprojects.
A painter's article will be kept with zero reference. An eighteenth century military general's article will be kept with zero reference.
Dakota Ditcheva This article which I created was nominated for AFD. The editor who nominated it, didn't do follow the procedural formality of informing the page creator of a deletion discussion on my talk page.
I read these articles from WP:RS sources non sports websites BBC, mirror, elle uk. I didn't create the article without checking the details.
My page move was reverted, I don't want this to be deleted but userfied like Kayla Day AFD. There are some AFD regulars who don't do their own research while voting. MarvellousSpider-Man17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marvellous Spider-Man: I have moved the article back to the mainspace to allow the AFD to run its course. As a tip for the future, I would suggest you create any new articles in the WP:AFC or a WP:SANDBOX before moving them into the mainspace. This will then preserve a copy of the article should it be deleted. Additionally, the proper way to request a deleted article is to submit a request at WP:REFUND. Likewise, in the AFD, you can request the article be userfied to your userspace when the AFD concludes. Mkdwtalk18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Marvellous Spider-Man brought this up above at #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day. I determined that WP:G4 did not apply in the situation. Firstly, the AFD participants already noted that there was a very high chance that this athlete would likely meet our notability inclusion criteria within the near future. It was under this rationale that the article was to be preserved as a draft. I don't suspect any of the editors expected her to meet the criteria quite so soon but that's exactly why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL. The future is unpredictable. In terms of the editor who re-created the article, I suspect they were not aware of a draft being preserved. When they went to the article, all they would have seen was the log entry that stated: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day. Sportsfan77777 is a relatively new editor. At the time they had less than 400 edits. I think it's easy to forget how much knowledge and understanding of the system we as experienced editors accumulate over the course of our time here. In this situation, Sportsfan77777 would have needed to click through the log link and then properly assess the AFD outcome and understanding "userfy". They then would have had to move the draft back into the mainspace and make their changes. While this is probably the preferred method as it would have saved some work, what unfolded was not improper or in conflict with any guidelines we current have on th eissue. Drafts do not have to be used first before a new article can be created. I'm not going to recommend a merge history here because the pages, while about the same subject, have two distinct beginnings and the genesis of the content share no point in common as far as I can see. If Sportsfan77777 had copied and pasted content from the draft to make their article then we would be looking at a history merge. Another example, when the outcome of an AFD is merge, we do not merge the article histories. I do understand Marvellous Spider-Man's frustration in this situation but as I mentioned above, we shouldn't try and think of it as Marvellous Spider-Man's version over Sportsfan77777's version. We saved the article to reduce the amount of work required in creating a new article. It wasn't to preserve who wrote about it first; it's not a race. I say this in the context that already this issue has exhausted the time and energy of everyone involved far greater than any effort saved by moving a stub article with a few sentences back into the mainspace. I hope this clarifies the situation and feel free to ask any follow up questions. Mkdwtalk17:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mkdw for clarifying things. FWIW, I only asked because I still had the draft on my watchlist and then I remember that I had also seen the created article. I have no vested interest in who gets the credit for creating this; it just seems as if the draft was no longer needed. I just wasn't sure if it could be deleted without a history merge. Anyway, I have no further questions so thanks for taking a closer look to check again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawid2009: I replaced your link with {{Archive box}} because your first archive will already be full and a second archive will be started shortly. The archive box template will automatically update the number of archives you currently have going. If you'd prefer to go back to a plain link at the top, then it's easy to remove. Cheers, Mkdwtalk16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawid2009: The way your user talk page has now been set up, it "should", automatically archive threads older than 100 days but will always leave the last 4 threads. It will manage the size your archives to a maximum of 150k before starting a new one. It will also automatically update the listed archives for each new one created in the box on the right hand side. Mkdwtalk16:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you can make a copyedit in Paper soccer ? I am not a native English spoeaker and it is difficult to me to correct it article better. I am an author of the sections of the strategies and XRSoccer. Main author of the gameplay on large playing area there was mainly Alhesoft. regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lowell Goddard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dominion Post (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.
Thank you. It seems WP:DELREVD was not followed before the DRV begun and the AFD in question occurred some nine months ago. Considering the nominator is trying to present new evidence so far down the road seems inappropriate for DRV. Since AFD is not a lifetime sentence for an article, I don't think by policy a DRV is required to recreate an article if things have changed since the closure. There would be no point overturning the decision on evidence that did not exist at the time. Mkdwtalk01:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: AIV
Hi Mkdw,
Some of the reports that I have made are a bit preemptive because of the long history of vandalism coming from them. When looking at the block logs, I see that the IP addresses have been blocked in the past, so I figure that they don't need as sufficient enough warnings... I've reported IP's to AIV on numerous occasions (in similar situations) where the IP's are indeed eventually blocked.
Actually, I find that a fair amount of admins block IP's shortly after they have vandalized, if they have a very long block record on them... not a critique on your part at all, but just an observation, that's all... 73.96.115.3 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
