No of course not. It's his user page. Unless the user is actively advertising something in violation of G11, there's no reason to delete/blank it. We tend to give editors leeway on their userpages. —Dark02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll check the talk page and the previous mover's history you'll find there was no discussion at all, let alone consensus, for the previous move. There are several references that support the notion that this is a proper name, not a generic term, so "downcasing" the name was counter to article naming conventions. Why is consensus now needed to reverse the previous move? Jeh (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you discuss this with Tony1, and not myself. He is well-versed in WP:MOS so I was inclined to trust his judgement regarding the proper article title conventions. Further, I don't believe that the page move would be considered non-controversial considering it's a revert of another page move, hence why you need to obtain consensus before moving it back. —Dark06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate discussion has been opened. However I must say that I find nothing in WP:MOVE that suggests a revert of a move should be considered any more controversial, thus requiring consensus, than was the original move. (Indeed, it says "To undo a move from page A to page B, simply move page B back to page A.")
Or to put it the other way around, if the revert is controversial then so was the original move... and as the original move in this case was not even discussed, it should be reverted with extreme prejudice on that basis. (grin)
I actually think all page moves should be discussed and reach consensus first. But as that is not policy or even a guideline, I see no reason why a newly-minted name should have any more stature than the original name. Quite the opposite, in fact. Jeh (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's one way of preventing move-warring. Under more heated/controversial circumstances, I would of course move back to the original title. But this is such a small issue that it might be best to just leave it as it is, until an agreement is reached. —Dark10:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that requiring discussion first would be more effective as preventing move-warring. Maybe the "move" button should bring up a warning, much as "Save page" does if you don't fill in a summary: "If you think there is any possibility that this move would be considered controversial, you should discuss it on the article talk page first..." Declaring a move "non-controversial" should be even more carefully considered than declaring an edit as "minor", as a move can be far more disruptive (and, as we see here, laborious to fix).
Deletion of the Article "Mission High School (San Jose, California)
Last evening (in London time), I created an article for this high school after seeing a mention of it in the Huffington post. And yes, it was a hoax. But I feel that the process of deleting the article was unjust and unfair in nearly every way.
About 10 minutes after the article's creation, it was proposed for speedy deletion on the grounds that its subject was of little significance. a few mnutes later, it was changed to a proposal for deletion on the grounds that it seemed to be a hoax. On the deletion tag, it mentioned that I could object to the proposal using the article's discussion page, so I took the chance to defend the page's legitimacy using an article from a well-known news website, i.e. the Huffington Post's article for the London 2012 New Year's Day Parade.
And I countered every reason given in the proposal using logical statements and evidence.
And the next morning, I find the page suddenly deleted.
And my defence was also deleted because the page was deleted.
Why was I given a chance at defence if it was to be ignored?
And what's the point of having discussion pages for articles if no discussion commences?
Creating a hoax is by no means the correct method to test out Wikipedia's deletion process. Regarding the deletion of the article, I took into account the investigation of fellow editor about the school, which is found here, and was suitably satisfied that the article was indeed a hoax. Your argument that the school exists was solely based on a Post article, which actually referred to Mission San Jose High School. In Wikipedia, obvious hoaxes such as these can be deleted immediately under G3, so I dealt with it accordingly. You must understand that if every article was given a chance for prolonged discussion (even when it is obviously a hoax), we would not get anything done. —Dark06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add. I was the editor who proposed deletion of this hoax, then took it to AfD. Michael Liu, you created a hoax article, lied about it and deliberately mis-represented a source that you knew was incorrect to try to justify the article. Saying you "countered every reason given in the proposal using logical statements and evidence" is just incorrect. I responded in detail on the article's talk page and in the discussion: see the AfD discussion that did take place. Your article was quickly deleted because it was a hoax. If you don't want your articles deleted, don't attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by creating hoaxes. You were given multiple chances to defend your article. Your defences were at best flawed, at worst deliberate attempts to mislead. You have no grounds that I can see for complaint. If I were you, I'd be grateful you haven't had further action taken against you. Sparthorse (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
some hideously ugly talkback template
Hello, DarkFalls. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
But Hollywood Undead is a notable band. The fact that the albums are by an artist who was a former member of the band is an indication of significance, albeit not a significant one, therefore it passes A7. But again, I have my doubts whether it'll be considered notable enough in AfD. My suggestion would be to tag the articles with {{prod}} or to submit them all in one AfD nom. Cheers. —Dark11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DarkFalls, I ran Overtune through Google Translate. The article is about a group of friends who have formed a band. It does not contain an assertion of importance. Do we really need to wait for formal translation before CSD:A7 can be applied? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted an article about Dynamic Media roughly 10 minutes ago and it was sent to "speedy deletion", I modeled it after the Starbucks page and am wondering why it was deleted? Would like any tips to fix so I can get it posted - this is my first article so am looking for any feedback. Thanks Ryanpebble (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just read through the notes/links you sent. I posted references in my "reference" section which would be from leading sites/blogs in the industry (i.e. background music = XM/SIRIUS is #1 music source) - are those considered notable? I ask as the company is starting to make an impact but it is not like you will find them in Time magazine or CNN or anything like that. By having a link to the source would that qualify as verifiable?
A blog wouldn't be considered a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. All information within the article must be verified by an external third-party source, preferably through the use of in-line citations. If it isn't possible to find significant coverage of the company in a reliable third-party publication, then it may not meet our inclusion criteria. —Dark02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have reworked the article which I believe will meet the standards you mentioned. Just needed to go back to my research and cite correctly and edit. Do I start from scratch and begin the article or post here? Thanks Ryanpebble (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the article here, where you can work on it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia at the moment. You'll need to find more independent sources to work with, rather than the "about us" on the company website or any other self-publishing sources. —Dark22:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls, thank you for your comment on [1].
If the article Zadar and in general the articles about the history of Dalmatia are so contentious there is a reason.
Croatian and Italian historiographies about this region are very different but as the situation is today the Croatian POV is reported with bigger enphasis, even when English or German sources confirm the Italian approach (don't ask me why, may be because Croatian users have contributed more to the articles or are more numerous).
Perhaps if the articles were presenting a more compromised position, the disputes would disappear. The issue is that there is strong opposition about some Croatian users to make any change in this direction.
This explains why periodically there are so many problems.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You had deleted the page I created for humanitarian Cameron E King. Could you please let me know the reason for the same and if I would like to re submit the page, what alterations do you suggest I incorporate?
Umm, no I wasn't. I merely commented on ANI about my view on the situation. If you need some help with the RfC however, I will be happy to oblige, although I do need to refamiliarise myself with the topic of discussion. I have not followed the case since I gave evidence at the Dalmatia arbitration a few years back. —Dark00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the restoration as there is no exemption to CSD G5 per your italicized if there is no problem with the article. The only exemption is "which have no substantial edits by others" and the articles do not have any substantial edits by others. So the articles are your responsibility now. I do not think aiding a banned user in getting new articles created is a good idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CSD-G5 is pretty clear and relevant here: "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." MarcusQwertyus08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, and since you believe that G5 merits following to the letter, regardless of circumstance, feel free to revert/delete all of Cool3's contribution on the project. I believe that consists of several FAs. And they were created in violation of a ban. I do not feel it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to delete perfectly fine articles just because it's been created by a banned editor. But obviously if you feel differently, feel free to contest it. The G5 criteria was made to delete articles that are problematic, due to the banned editor's history. I see no problem with the articles in their current form, so I restored it. —Dark10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OSUHEY's contributions have been full of copyvio, and the use of sockpuppetry to re-add problems means that G5 absolutely applies. Dark, you couldn't be more wrong in this case. Allowing this guy's edits to remain after the crap he's pulled (as someone who tackles copyright, I've seen a lot) defeats the purpose of G5 entirely. WizardmanOperation Big Bear06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of G5 is that it allows admins to delete articles when there are doubts regarding an article's validity, due in part to the history of the creator. Sure I agree that OSUHEY'S contributions merit deletion when there is any suspicion regarding copyright violations, on a case by case basis. However I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia that articles that have no problems or any suggestions of such are deleted purely due to the editor's background. I restored the articles because there was no copyright violation within them. I ask, if an banned editor creates an FA, should we delete it under G5 solely to punish him? The articles I have restored are watchlisted, and I will monitor them should any problems arise. In any case, I haven't talked to you in a while and it's nice to see you're still around :) —Dark07:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how G5 is or has ever been. See WP:BANS#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. G5 is for contributions by banned or blocked during the term of their ban. OSUHEY's sanctions have explicitly been agreed upon by the community. Naturally you are going to have to go through the community to reach any sort of ban modification. MarcusQwertyus06:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that his ban is modified, and never have done. Feel free to block any sockpuppets of his in the future. —Dark06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I quote, from WP:BAN: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I do not believe there is any ambiguity in this situation. —Dark07:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I am incredibly pleased, but I have deleted the articles in question based on advice from a friend and upon reflection of the unnecessary controversy this may have created. However, I will be remaking the articles from scratch in the near future, so obviously G5 would not apply. —Dark07:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have intentions of becoming an Administrator, one day. I mainly would like to work in the field of vandalism. I came accross this malicious IP, and reported them ~ however, they only got a week ~ for some edits which are highly innapropriate. Is there a specific reason as to why they only got a week?
Also, if possible, could you please remove the following edits/edit summaries from these revisions:
I'm not one to be offended by this behaviour ~ however, in this case I actually am. Things said by that IP, was not only insulting, but repulsive, and was a stretch. Also I think this is the same person behind this IP. Thank you, -- MST☆R(Chat Me!)11:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely block an IP for a long time on the first offence, as IP addresses change with time (someone else might be stuck with the IP address in a week's time and we obviously do not want to limit access to others). In the case of those edits, they don't seem to be any more abusive than many others I've seen - I am disinclined to delete revisions unless they are very serious. It's a waste of time humouring these children with your time and effort. —Dark13:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot an IP can be more than one person -_- wow, I shouldn't be editing late! :) Anyway, I guess I and the others, can simply just ignore it. Thank you, -- MST☆R(Chat Me!)00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
