Je suis Coffee
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Juliancolton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:JCbot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Juliancolton's archives


March 2008 Archive · April 2008 Archive · May 2008 Archive · June 2008 Archive · July 2008 Archive · August 2008 Archive · September 2008 Archive · October 2008 Archive · November 2008 Archive · December 2008 Archive · January 2009 Archive · February 2009 Archive · March 2009 Archive · April 2009 Archive · May 2009 Archive · June 2009 Archive · July 2009 Archive · August 2009 Archive · September 2009 Archive · October 2009 Archive · November 2009 Archive · December 2009 Archive · January 2010 Archive · February 2010 Archive · March 2010 Archive · April 2010 Archive · May 2010 Archive · June 2010 Archive · July 2010 – January 2011 Archive · February 2011 Archive · March 2011 – March 2012 Archive · March 2012 – March 13 Archive · March 2013 – early 2014 · 2014 – mid-2015 · mid-2015 – 2016 · current

MS Sea Wind[edit]

I've bashed the article into shape. Are you able to expand it from the sources you mention at the AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Wow, really nice work! I was already planning on chipping in this evening, so I'll certainly do what I can to help continue your expansion. This is the kind of result I love to see at AfD. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'll turn my attention to MS Regal Star then. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar[edit]

I take issue with your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar. I don't see how you can claim "most editors agree that there's no reason to deviate from longstanding practice in this case" when WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer a valid AfD rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Directly citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now considered an "argument to avoid", but per the RfC summary, it remains "an accurate statement of the results"; consequently, it's still perfectly acceptable looking to standard practice for guidance. If you can explain why school AfDs typically result in "keep", then it's no longer circular logic and there's no issue. Even after the secondary school RfC, it is, as far as I'm aware, almost unprecedented for high school articles to be deleted (if I'm wrong about this, please let me know). Most editors—both at the aforementioned AfD and in general—agree that high schools and equivalents will typically be able to fulfill GNG, even if the sources are difficult to find. Since a few valid sources were identified concerning the institution, apparently without anyone having embarked on "a deeper search than normal", there was no consensus to abandon common practice surrounding school AfDs. Happy to explain further if I'm being unclear. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to clear up this logical impasse. Over the past several years a cohort of editors felt that Wikipedia should keep articles about secondary schools that didn't otherwise prove to be notable. Someone then wrote SCHOOLOUTCOMES, opining that because of this cohort, AfD often results in a "keep" outcome so it's fruitless to nominate. The RfC rejected this logic. Secondary schools are now required to pass some other measure of notability. The arguments provided in that AfD reinforced a belief (with no basis in fact or policy) that we should keep articles about secondary schools. One editor advanced the idea that even though there is no evidence that school is generally notable, we could presume that there must be offline, non-English reportage which would prove the school notable. What we have here is institutional momentum and a few stubborn editors proclaiming their opinions as a rationale. Your decision was wrong, in my mind, because it goes against the consensus of the RfC. The keep arguments were invalid and the correct decision was delete since the school fails NCORP and GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, for better or worse, admins aren't given much latitude to determine the "correct" decision. I suspect you know as well as I do that a delete result there would have been labeled a supervote and rapidly overturned at DRV. It's not as if those arguing in favor of deletion made a vastly stronger case than those for retention; two of the votes were "per nom", even though the nomination statement didn't really advance a policy-based reason for deletion, as outlined by AusLondonder. Only one "delete" vote even bothered to address the sources that had been introduced, potentially to the satisfaction of GNG. I'm sorry you disagree with my reasoning and the result of that AfD, but I really don't think there was any other viable way to close that discussion. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: seems to have quite some difficulty treating other editors with civility along with failing to grasp that Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. They have completely misrepresented the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC outcome. In this case reliable sources have been provided which caused one delete !voter to strike their comments. When Chris troutman could not think of any debating points they resorted to personally attacking numerous editors of very long standing and high regard, accusing them of incompetence. !Votes centred solely on personal attacks, such as Chris troutman's should be ignored anyway. The deletion argument put forward by the nom was not credible and no other close option existed. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


You are requested to please reconsider your decision to delete above page. Although there are not so many article written about the subject directly but there are references available about the subject’s contribution to the society. This is not an emotional appeal but a request as this social worker keeps his foundation first before promoting himself, and work significantly towards the betterment and welfare of the society. If you go through their official website or other press coverage, you will find that all the work is done by him only and everywhere his name is mentioned along with his foundation. You are here on wiki for so long and have better wisdom than me. Please reconsider this page, i will improve the same in days to come with more direct articles and references . Regards Shibanihk (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shibanihk. I don't doubt that Mr. Verma does excellent work, but you'll note that we already have an article on his foundation: Uday Foundation. You admit that Rahul Verma has not been discussed in many sources, so you already understand why he fails to meet our inclusion criteria. Notability is not inherited, so just because someone's business or charity is notable doesn't mean that they themselves are so. It's an unfortunate fact of life that one can spend a lifetime helping others and not receive much recognition, and Wikipedia only covers subjects that are already noteworthy. Thank you for understanding. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with whatever you said. We'll make his page again, the day i feel he is notable . Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello, all sourced information from iXpress is already at Grand_River_Transit#iXpress. Can the content of iXpress be replaced by a redirect? --Rogerx2 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rogerx2, yes, that's fine. Thanks for the message. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It's done. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please restore J.J. Hurtak article to a draft[edit]

I understand the notability concern and will be researching further. The more solid references that exist about J.J. Hurtak's non-fringe work are global (non-English) so this may take some time. --Nel4316 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)