User talk:Malcolmxl5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please restore Anusha Gunasekera as i wanted to make a lot more improvements and make it more notable so restore it if you are a true wikipedian. 175.157.166.179 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Re NOQUORUM deletion of certain articles: please restore them[edit]

I notice that you closed the AfD discussions for the following articles as WP:SOFTDELETE because there was WP:NOQUORUM and, therefore, no consensus to delete:

Accordingly I would be grateful if you would restore the deleted articles under the rubric of WP:SOFTDELETE, which says they must be restored on request, because such a request is equivalent to contesting a PROD. All of the circuit judges satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, because the Crown Court of which they are members is a national court and they accordingly hold national office. All of the QCs satisfy WP:ANYBIO. And all of these people satisfy WP:GNG. These nominations were part of a WP:MASSNOM in which there was no pretence of complying with WP:BEFORE. Several subsequent AfDs were actually shut down by an admin who noticed how quickly the nominations were being made. In almost all these AfDs the single !voter is the same editor. And I was unable to participate at the AfDs in question, and if I had been present, there would have been no deletions. I shall conclude by sending an Echo notification to User:Graemp, who has expressed an interesting in restoring these articles in the past. Thank you in advance. James500 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. I remember these AfDs which included many articles I had either created or contributed to. I opposed many of the AfDs but not all. I was not aware of any articles being deleted as a consequence. Some I had not contributed to, may have lacked sufficient notability. It is hard to tell if any of those in the list above had sufficient notability. Restoring them in the first instance seems to be the best way forward. Graemp (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @James500 and Graemp: I closed these as ‘delete’, not as ‘soft delete’. If I had intended to close as ‘soft delete’, I would have said so per the instructions at WP:NOQUORUM: The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. Rather, I used the discretion that was given to me by WP:NOQUORUM (in March 2016) to close the discussion - the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. - as delete in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. That said, I recognise we have since moved to treating these discussions with one or few participants as expired PRODs, which is reflected in the paragraph added in July 2017 following a RFC, and I’m happy to restore them on that basis. I’ll ping you when I’ve done this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for doing this. I was not aware that WP:NOQUORUM had been amended in 2017. I apologise for my error in suggesting your closing rationale was something other than one it was. James500 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise, James500. Keep up the good work! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Roni Lee redirects[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I was in the middle of a merge/redirect from Roni Lee to Venus and the Razorblades, per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roni Lee, when I got called away to a different task in the real world. Hence the odd redirects that you cleared up during my momentary absence. All is complete now, and thanks for your help along the way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Doomsdayer520. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit and Locked Page for Further Edits[edit]

Hi, With Recent Edits, You have changed Status of Page 'Sambhaji' to Protected, But there is some Controversial information which is based on poor references and Lacks Historical Evidences. There are several attempts for User to remove the Information from the Page but the information is reintroduced with Your recent Edits, I request You to Remove the Sensitive Information from the page with procedure or help people who are in agreement, with Further steps As We are exploring legal ways for removing the same, I believe there are other ways and forums for resolving the disputes than stopping people from their right to Update the information with references.

Historyprotect (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Historyprotect: You say “Suggest us Further steps“. Who is “us”? Are you talking about a group of people? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Historyprotect: I see that you changed “Suggest us Further steps“ to “help MD with Further steps“. I have no idea what that means. It is clear that you do not write sufficiently well in English to be editing the English Wikipedia and I would encourage you to find and edit the Wikipedia that is written in your native language. So far as the article is concerned, I protected it due to a pattern of disruptive editing on that page. Since the protection has been effective in curbing the disruptive behaviour, and you are able to edit the page, I see no reason to lift it. So far as the content is concerned, editors should find a consensus as to what sources say on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Malcomx15 I was asking for help regarding the procedure to remove content which are controversial in Nature & there is no consensus between Editors and people who requested the change in Content. I may not be the best When it comes to writing in English, Ironically People Who written this Content also do not belong to this Region or language,Still they have added contents which are sensitive and Controversial. I request editors and Who Protected the page to learn Language 'Marathi' in which they will find good and authentic literature to study further. Also to clarify further, to help 'Us', in this context 'US' means people who are in agreement that Content is controversial and to get removed and seeking further help to resolve conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyprotect (talkcontribs) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for review article deleted Sikandar Ali Jogi [edit]

Hi Dear, I request for this article deletion review as I was offline during the deletion discussion and I think that article was sufficient with supportive reliable sources. Article deletion Review Sikandar Ali Jogi...Thanks.Jogi 007 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jogi, it’s always disappointing when an article you have created is nominated for deletion and it was particularly unfortunate that you were offline when it happened. Because there was little participation other than the nominator, may I suggest that we WP:REFUND the page into draft space so the content can be improved upon before returning it to article space? PhilKnight said of the sources that there was “lots of trivial mentions, but no significant coverage” and this will give you an opportunity to improve this aspect of the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks dear, I'll work on it.....Jogi Asad, Talk to me 15:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
==Deletion review for Sikandar Ali Jogi==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sikandar Ali Jogi. 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. ..Jogi Asad, Talk to me 06:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jogi Asad, where are we with this? Do you want me to move the page to draft space so you can work on it? I don’t see a ‘deletion review’ in progress nor is one necessary, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
yes plz "draft space", unfortunately there are some biased afd, I wonder one user I don't know what is his position on enwiki is pushing my articles to afd, unjustifiably and planned tendentiously without any proof of allegations put topic ban and unjustifiably those articles having keep votes, and reliable sources were deleted, I'm expecting some admins and arbitrator to neutrally save those afds which meets the GNG and atleast having one or two reliable sources, otherwise it will be very prone such biased users will harm Wikipedia "sum of all human knowledge" content, articles and objectives. JogiAsad (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi JogiAsad, I have restored and moved the page to Draft:Sikandar Ali Jogi so you can improve it before returning it to article space. When you have improved it, nominate it for review by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. So far as sourcing is concerned, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. If you have high quality sources that are substantially about the subject, you should have no problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks also make drafts for Amb Jogi afd and Iqbal Jogi afds..JogiAsad (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The deletion review was removed a a topic ban violation. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

2600:1702:1690:e10::/64 block[edit]

I think the last block was for a week. Isn't it customary to increase the block each time? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I see a block of 31 hours in the block log, a block that mirrored the 36 hour block on 2600:1702:1690:E10:387C:9EC8:F449:2305 made by Oshwah and then my block of one week. Certainly a longer block will be warranted if the editor returned to editing disruptively, have they been back? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

T35 Hosting[edit]

Would you be able to push the deleted T35 Hosting page back to drafts? I'd like to take another stab at improving it and submitting it for review. Thanks! ITGuru (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@ITGuru: Yes, no problem. You can find it at Draft:T35 Hosting. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Malcomx15: Thank you! ITGuru (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Vinayak Nath[edit]

Hi there! I noticed you recently deleted the article for Vinayak Nath. I am considering rewriting the article, since he is actually is notable, beyond his noble statues and relation to the political and State Government Family, and as a role model for the Startups of Uttar Pradesh. I wanted to check in with you before doing so. His recent work are covered by renowned media houses, for example: TEDTEDx Times of India IIM Lucknow Business World Business World Times Of India Inc42 Times Of India Daily Hunt HubPress Reader. Kindly do let me know, if I could initiate re-writing. -- ≠Shayaanahmadnoori (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shayaanahmadnoori, you can of course write a new article but if it is not to be deleted again, you will need to take onboard the concerns expressed in the deletion discussion, which were, broadly, the article was not written in encyclopaedic style and there was no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject found to attest to the subject’s notability. If you do attempt a new article, I would suggest that you do this in draft space and put it forward for review using {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page before it is moved to article space. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added 331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
removed Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

11 years of editing, today.[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Malcolmxl5. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg
Thank you, Chris. Eleven years? Eek! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Malcolmxl5,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonnie Stewart (2nd nomination)[edit]

Can you possibly restore this article in my user space? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:A Quest For Knowledge, it’s done, you can find it at User:A Quest For Knowledge/Jonnie Stewart. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Salting[edit]

After you deleted the previous one, someone created another article called BanitaSandhu. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Harshrathod50, it’s been deleted and I’ve added the salt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fidelitrade Incorporated[edit]

Would you be able to push the deleted Fidelitrade Incorporated page back to drafts? I'd like to attempt some revisions and additions of more sources for improvement before submitting it for review. Best Regards Ty1695 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ty1695, do you still want this? I see there is already a draft: Draft:FideliTrade Incorporated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of Kalten[edit]

Hi Malcomxl5,

I have List of rivers of Bavaria on my watchlist and therefore noted your deletion of the article Kalten and your removal of the entry Kalten from this list. As far as I understand you deleted Kalten because it was a redir to the deleted article List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. However, can you please check whether there was an older version of Kalten that is a proper article about a German river, and if so, copy this version somewhere to my userspace?

My reason:

The entry Kalten was already present in Dr. Blofeld's first version of the list. It was obviously copied from the German version of the list from August 28. 2011. At this time, there existed a river article named Kalten in the German Wikipedia. Since then, this article has been moved in the German Wikipedia to Kaltenbach (Mangfall), because Kaltenbach seems the more common name for this river.

From this, I conclude that some older version of Kalten in the English Wikipedia contains useful material for a new river article Kaltenbach (Mangfall) which I want to create. I assume that the article Kalten here in the Englisch Wikipedia was simply vandalised and replaced by a redir to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. Therefore, the second newest version should be the proper river article.

Thank you, I hope my theory is correct --j (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyfal: Hi, Cyfal. Yes, Kalten was a redirect to ‘List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters’. The page started life in 2005 as a short article about a ‘knight of the Pandion Order and boyhood friend of Sparhawk’(!) and was redirected in 2006. There is no history of any article about a river there. I guess that when Dr. Blofeld created the list, the link was blue and it was overlooked that the linked page was not about a river. We have I think an article that is missing and a opportunity to create one. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your work and your explanations! Thus, the knight did even manage to appear on the list of rivers of Bavaria! Ok, I will then create the river article again, but this time with a real river. --Cyfal (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Asshole hat.jpg[edit]

Hi Malcolm, thanks for blacklisting the above image. It looks like the transclusion counter has purged down to a small group and the image is actually legitimately used on a few user pages:

Not sure if this is all of them, but I think you might want to add exceptions for those. Home Lander (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I’ve added exceptions for these but I do wonder, you know, whether this image is really worth adding to the list (most entries are pornographic in nature). Perhaps we can review this in a few weeks time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was not likely to be of real use on any actual pages, and more likely in the short term to be misused again. Suppose it could stay there temporarily. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Let’s see how it goes. :) It’s not something to agonise over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha, that file is an actual picture of me. I included it on my user page years ago and forgot about it. I'm surprised to see it got re-used by others. If it's somehow a problem, I'm not upset if it goes away. ENDelt260 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@ENDelt260: My guess is it's probably mostly trolls that come across it; if you enter "File:Asshole" into the search bar it's one of the first things that generates. (I'm probably violating WP:BEANS here.) Home Lander (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Charles[edit]

Hi Malcolm, an article I had started on the above subject was deleted last year. I have since found some new material which I have incorporated and put a revised draft in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsouzaron/sandbox Please have a look and let me know whether it appears notable. Tissueboy (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

S Uma Neha[edit]

Hello, just dropped by to bring this article to your attention as you have protected Uma Neha and Uma Neha S (Singer) from creation. I sense sockpuppetry and UPE too here. Thanks. Hitro talk 20:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@HitroMilanese: Including Musskan Sethi‎ so reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proudpurian. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of the ETS page was not based on a true consensus between scientists[edit]

Dear Marcolmx15, as you might be informed by C.Fred, I launched a contest for the deletion of the page Geodakyan Evolutionary Theory of Sex. I am totally not the author and I am willing to make just one more extra step to restore the page, just as a matter of principle to fight Editorial biases. Mr. Lem, who consistently vandalized the page during its existence, is the only opponent to this page, and he openly expressed his biases towards Russian science during the discussions on the Talk page. I wished you looked at this discussion first before making the deletion to see that Mr. Lem sneaked in his AfD when nobody was watching the page at the end of University term. We, mathematical biologists, are scientists and professors, we don't monitor Wikipedia all the time, and it is sad that biases of a single Editor can kill the page so easy and fast, but it takes many bureaucratic, almost impossible steps to restore it. The ETS theory is very technical and only experts can recommend either deletion or improvement of the page, and it is hard to believe that immediately, same day after Mr. Lem posted the AdD, 2 opinions emerged for deletion (it is hard to find experts on this topic), and btw, their arguments were not true. The theory is well-known in Russian science (see the references to the reports of the Academy of Science, rather a large and respectful academic organization). The fact that it was proposed in a non-English language and was not exposed to the West due to the Iron Curtain should be irrelevant. So, please restore the page as the consensus was not reached (considering the opinions on the Talk page) and was made-up based on just two false opinions. Plus, C.Fred recommended me to contact you for the access to the archive of the Talk page of this deleted page. If you feel that the page should not be restored, the history of existence and deletion of this page is a good examples of the flaws of the Wikipedia editing. Instead of contacting all members of discussants of this page for a restoration I will rather launch a discussion of editorial biases, and I need an assess to the archives. Thank you for your work on it. KaiStr (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear KaiStr.
I am the uninvolved administrator who closed the deletion discussion. The nomination for deletion and the deletion discussion were in accord with the deletion processes of the English Wikipedia. So far as the closure is concerned, it was clear to me that there was consensus that the article should be deleted because the topic had not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I do not see any other way of closing the deletion discussion other than delete and I do not see any basis on which I can overturn the result.
So where to go from here.
If you believe that there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or that I interpreted the consensus incorrectly, you may request a deletion review at WP:DRV for one or the other (or both) of these reason(s). I do not believe that there were errors in the discussion or that I interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
Alternatively, if you were to produce evidence of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, you may ask for a deletion review and argue that the deleted page should be recreated because “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” exist.
Whatever you choose to do, I suggest strongly that you stop making reference to Mr. Lem and other editors and focus entirely on sources. The deleted article talk page can be found at User:Discospinster/Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex.
Pinging all those mentioned or involved here: @KaiStr, C.Fred, Discospinster, and Staszek Lem: --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. It is summer and I am not around very much so I may not reply swiftly to any responses.
Thank you very much for the link to the archive. Also thank you for listing the rules but how was it "clear to you that there was consensus about low coverage" if right on the discussion page the conclusion, as posted by another administrator, was that the topic is "probably notable"? It is hard not to mention Mr. Lem as, looking from the Talk page, 1) he was the only, single major opponent, and 2) it was he who nominated the page for deletion AFTER the consensus about "probably notable" was reached on the Talk page. This is not my theory, so I am not going to break my head to restore it, but I am certainly motivated to improve Wikipedia's rules, and use this ETS page history as a public example. Just look again at the Talk page and get a sense of which side you are on. You, as a deleting Editor, at least in theory, should note the biases of the Editor who nominated the page for deletion (simply from the review of the Talk page). Just to make a "kill" decision on 2 quick postings "for delete", ignoring the fact that they emerged almost on the day of the AfD by Mr. Lem might look like a rather negligent decision. I kindly ask you to review your decision again, and we will go from there.KaiStr (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@KaiStr: As an uninvolved administrator closing that deletion discussion, I can only take into account what is put forward in the deletion discussion. The outcome was clear. The best way forward now is to show that the topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject’. Do that and everything is resolved. This should be a simple matter if these sources exists. Present these sources at WP:DRV and the English Wikipedia community will consider whether the article should be recreated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: 1) The absense of the rule for deleting administrator to screen for biases of the parties proposing the deletion troubles me. The Wikipedia should protect pages from deletion by biased individuals who has a personal vendetta against specific pages/theories/items, etc. requiring a specific expertise. Is Mr. Lem a mathematical biologist? Did he edit many biological pages? The ETS page would not be deleted if there is a rule that the AfD cannot be posted by a user/Editor who has earlier expressed a biased opinion or showed actions against a given page. That what the case with Mr. Lem: he had many actions and postings of opposing nature on the Talk page. An uninvolved administrator should first screen for biases in the party posting the AfD simply by looking at the Talk page, this is manageable and not very far to go. Once you saw the biases, there should be a mechanism to stop the deletion as the proposition for deletion came from a biased source.

2) Plus if the subject relates to science, an AfD should be posted only by experts in this field. Mr. Lem's arguments are more in line that "Russians have a lot of pseudoscience" but nothing specific. This sounds like like a national bias. These two rules should be discussed with the community using the ETS case, if the page is not restored. 3) Re: "significant coverage" - the discussion in regards to such coverage WAS going on for an year, and at least decision by the administrators of the Wikipedia WAS MADE that there is probably some exposure. Russian colleagues would argue that there was a massive exposure, considering the size of Russian population, but at least some exposure was officially already accepted. So now you are telling us that the contribution of opinions on the Talk page means nothing and we have to start all over again with gathering opinions. I am not a social animal, I am just a scientist, and not a young one, so I simply don't have energy to go in loops between deletions and restorations using the same arguments for years only because Wikipedia cannot protect the page from one, single biased Editor. I am asking the Administrators who killed the page to reverse their decision, as I believe that it was not based on a consensus. Mr. Lem already attempted to delete the page in the past, a consensus was to keep it, why should we repeat this cycle again? I am explaining that all steps to gain consensus for keeping the page was already made and these steps should not be ignored. You suggest to repeat a round of support for evidence that I observed earlier, and this is not very productive way of protection against individuals with biases. When I have time, I rather go directly at the Administration level, to discuss current policies of the Wikipedia than fight over a single page about one of rather complex theories of mathematical biology. 4) Another rule about deletion should be added for a balance of the time frame for deletion: Now 7 days for the AfD has more weight for the decision about the deletion, even when it is based on two, superficial, few-words and wrong opinions than much longer and and much more detailed discussion, with more parties involved, with more references and evidence. Something should be done about it, at least Administrators deleting the page should compare the activity on the Talk page and activity on the Deletion page. People who post their opinions on Talk pages do it using their time and intellectual resources, and their contributions should be equally respected. Same, as I truly respect your time reading this and thinking about it.KaiStr (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)