Jump to content

User talk:Postdlf/Archive26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can you email me text from deleted page: All UC Davis alumni by department

I understand the exclusionary action, and I'd like to put the text on wikia, but the history does not show deleted pages.

Can you send it to me? dzetland@gmail Davidzet (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy posted at User:Davidzet/temp. I'll delete it in a few days. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Davidzet (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

incomplete List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units

I've reached an agreement with the user who nominated the List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in El Salvador that it should be recreated pending completion of the list based on the Paleobiology Database. I just wanted to let you know I was doing this so you don't think I'm sneaking around behind your back. Abyssal (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks

For your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. Since my proposal is to make a change to the guideline, would you mind commenting on the specific wording and if you're ok with it, or whether you'd propose changes? thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

talk page edit conflict?

Hi, could you fix this edit[1] ? DexDor (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, with a reply. It's strange, it didn't show me you had added text at all even though I got an edit conflict notice, which just confused me. postdlf (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request denied on List of ice hockey countries?

Why would anyone denied this criteria for speedy deletion? And now, there is nothing we can delete this article, like this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ice_hockey_countries&action=delete AaronWikia (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. postdlf (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your discussion style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an effort to smooth our discussions: To me, your discussion style is that of a debate rather than a collaboration. Do you see how I might have that perspective? --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not unless the answer is "irony". postdlf (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you feel you are collaborating? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it's "collaboration" to edit war and blank a page in support of your own AFD nomination, while the AFD is still pending? Do you think it's collaboration to slide from one rationale to another in response to a rebuttal rather than responding to that rebuttal? Do you think it's collaboration to repeat your opinion over and over again, regardless of what is said in response, without ever developing your argument or advancing the discussion? Do you think it's collaboration to evade legitimate criticism, of both your arguments and your conduct, by pointing to FOC rather than addressing the criticism, while nevertheless persisting in saying and doing exactly what was criticized? You said you don't spend much time at AFD. Well, it shows, but even that's not an adequate excuse. If I wasn't already involved as a participant in this AFD, I would have blocked you for disruption long ago. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Best not to criticize others for edit-warring when you're taking part and encouraging others as well. (And especially when there's an open discussion about multiple BLP problems.)
Best not criticize for repetition ad naseum against someone providing multiple different means of explaining his point of view and asking for others for elaboration of theirs. As I said, your approach is a debate. Don't project your approach on others, nor expect others to take the same approach.
"If I wasn't already involved as a participant in this AFD, I would have blocked you for disruption long ago." There you go, escalating your focus on me to the point of threats. Forget my question. Regardless of whether or not you think you're collaborating, you're not.
But enough about you.
I think it is fine to collaborate with others working on an article currently under AfD. You'll note that before anyone else started working on the article, I pointed out my concerns with edits then self-reverted. Now that we've editors actively working on the article, I'm working with them. Please don't prevent the improvement of the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to stop your obvious & intentional disruptive behavior immediately "Ronz". The are zero "BLP problems" in the List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 article. No amount of opining (without any facts to back up those assertions) will change that fact. AfD discussions involve just that...discussions about the content of an article. In short, they are, in fact, debates about article content & Wikipedia policy as it applies to the article under consideration for deletion. Don't try & backpedal on your recent editing behavior "Ronz", because we pretty much all can tell that it's obviously been intentionally disruptive. You're not, in fact, "working with" anyone. Again, stop it. Guy1890 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Guy1890: Just ignore Ronz. He hasn't said anything new in the AFD so there's no need for further rebuttal there. Otherwise he's just exhibiting WP:IDHT, and what can only be characterized as trolling and goading notwithstanding his pretense at "collaboration". If he blanks any more content from the list, revert and then report him at ANI. If you go that route, Guy1890, be sure to keep it concise and with clear diffs, focused on him first blanking entirely and then edit warring on exactly the position of his AFD nomination while it's still pending and while it's actively disputed. Don't try to argue the AFD itself (i.e., whether the list should ultimately be kept or deleted), though feel free to briefly and generally summarize his tone there. Just remember that posts that are tl;dr are often written off at ANI. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Fury

In this AfD debate which you closed a second article was also nominated. Four Letter Fury. Was that also a delete?Peter Rehse (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already took care of it. postdlf (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks anyway. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you look into this behavior?

Extended content
They keep removing content (mostly names of Wiki-linked articles that are obviously involved in the adult film industry) instead of actually trying to improve those articles by finding readily-available citations from those same Wiki-linked articles. When confronted by another administrator at Pornographic film actor, their tune changed some but only temporarily. As I highlighted on that page's talk page, this editor has had a past and recent history of stating clearly that they have little interest in looking for valid citations for this kind of content...only in deleting mentions of it. This editor is unfortunately renewing "concerns" that were initialy raised and mostly dismissed six months or so ago. I know that pornography-related content doesn't always get a fair shake here on Wikipedia, but I don't appreciate editors taking advantage of that in order to delete content that they find to be part of a "mysoginist subject".
Thanks in advance for looking into this when you can. I'm really not interested in getting anyone blocked at this time, but this kind of behavior needs to be addressed. Guy1890 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
As I have made clear to Guy, I have been removing unsourced material about living people from various porn article lists. As you know all BLP material that is challenged by any editor may be removed and should then only be reinserted with a ref. Guy's problem seems to be that he does not want names of living people removed from porn lists to make these lists BLP compliant, claiming it is my duty to find refs rather than remove the offending BLP material. Our BLP policy allow for the removal of unsourced information about living people without the editor doing the removing having to find sources. Unlike Guy I have actually found some refs today, all he does is criticize my attempts to make these articles BLP compliant though. As you know, our BLP policy does not demand that the person who removes offending material has to go and find the reliable sources though I have made efforts to do this todsay anyway and stated clearly my willingness to do this today, I look forward to collaborating with Guy in inserting reliably sourced material about living people back into these lists but assert he is wrong in claiming my behaviour is problematic and specifically wrong in claiming my desire is to censor porn, I dont want these names to remain deleted I want them to be there with reliable sources. What do you want, Guy, for wikipedia to insist BLP challeneged material about living people is inserted into articles without sources? My comment on my talk page was a general observation of miusogyny in porn meaning we need to get this right in tackling sexism on wikiepdia bu Guy has taken it out of context. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already left you enough to read without needlessly repling to the above nonsense, but you can add another example of blanking of article content & PRODing the then "empty" article to the above list. Guy1890 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, we can add List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films to the list as well.
Squeak, the main problem is your "slash and burn" tactics which when you factor in how many articles you've done this to it comes across as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Worse yet, multiple editors are in the middle of making these edits and adding the direct references that you so adamantly demand be present every time a porn actor/actress's name is mentioned and you're reverting our work [2]. I even tried using the {{in use}} template to let you and others know I was working on it and that still wasn't good enough. You then claimed that an unsourced BLP claim can't go unchallenged "even for one minute". that's nice and all, but we're not talking about content that is controversial. These people are known adult industry workers, that isn't a secret and including them on a when they already have an article is probably not going to offend them any time soon. Your efforts (now as in the past) are really quite tendentious and contrary to the group effort of the site. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Guy, describing my defence of BLP as nonsense and describing removing unsourced material about living people in an edit where I invoke BLP as blanking is simply not fair. I added the good faith PROD as the article was empty at the time, you removed the prod which is fine but readded the BLP violating material. When are you going to start quoting BLP policy to back up your assetions. Your description of my stated removal of BLP violations as blanking is not assuming good faith and nor is describing my defence as nonsense. Please be civil with me, Guy, on wikipedia and assume good faith when I invoke BLP to remove the names of living people unsourced in a porn list article. Scalhotrod, enforcing BLP is not slash and burn (all the info remains safely in the history anyway for easy restoral once refs are found) and nor is it disruptive when it concerns living people who have been inserted without a reliable source into a porn list article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that this Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names is the most relevant discussion of the subject, but its still not terribly clear cut. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 02:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant, Scalhotrod, is WP:BLP#Categories, lists and navigation templates, and that makes nom mention of lists only needing sourcing on the bio page itself. List of gay pornography awards even has a template Template:Editnotices/Page/List of male performers in gay porn films which should be duplicated for other porn lists, and I hope to do that soon. That article was this morning the best porn article list I found in terms of BLP compliance and I do not believe we are going to go down the path whereby lists dont require reliable sources for BLP compliance so we should go down the road of ALL porn list articles being 100% BLP compliant, or else change the BLP policy on lists♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI...these issues have developed further at AN/I (not by myself...I continue to loathe AN/I, especially when it comes to pornography-related complaints, since they seem to never go much of anywhere) and at a BLP RfC. Guy1890 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Postdlf. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Nazis closure

I ask you for some explanation of this closure. I do not think a list of unexplained "keeps" and "it's a well-known trope" votes stacks up against the lack of actual literary analysis. I'd be fine with an article that worked from the latter, but we don't have it and at the moment we aren't going to get it. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, both sides were largely making assertions, neither of which were unreasonable on their face. I'd suggest discussing with some of the keep !voters how they might develop it further, and if you're not satisfied with any progress relist again later this year. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Mirko Salvi

Hallo Postdlf, For your information: some time ago you deleted Mirko Salvi (04:34, 27 June 2013 Postdlf (talk | contribs) deleted page Mirko Salvi (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirko Salvi). Now that Salvi has made his profession debut, I have copied User:Huligan0/Mirko Salvi back into this space. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Public domain films

Thanks for deleting that. There is an article List of films in the public domain in the United States, a lot of time and effort has been made to ensure everything is reliably though minimally sourced.. in reality it should probably be orders of magnitude longer but without secondary sourcing... Determining copyright status of film is really hard sometimes impossible (short of a court case). Labeling a film PD via a category is laughable, though what pirates and others want to justify use. Removing categories is first step but also the many unsourced claims of PD status in the article text (probably the same article set). Complicated by copies on Internet Archive in the External Links labeled as PD (IA hosts many pirated films incorrectly labeled PD). -- GreenC 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Issuer Identification Numbers - yet another restoration request

Hi there,

I know you've gotten a couple of these requests previously, but there is something somewhat problematic about the lack of this page. The information contained here is hard to source elsewhere without significant cost, and from the conversation here it was suggested this content may be more suitable for Wikisource.

Are you able to restore this to my userspace somewhere, so I can move the content over to WikiSource?

Thanks PuppyOnTheRadio talk 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk

I have long believed your close of that article as keep was in error, because none of the keep votes were based in GNG. Your keep close has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 30 as justification for restoring other articles. If the DRV is closed as endorsed, it is likely that I will either send your Funk close to DRV, or renominate it at AfD. pbp 02:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ‎

My recommendation is to renominate. Your AFD was open for 11 days and got no support and three express opposers. The best you'd ever get at DRV on that is "endorse but relist," so I think that would be a waste of everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

List of people from San Francisco

Hi! I saw your message to me, and thanks for letting me know, at least. I wasn't trying to malicious or anything, but I can see why you flagged it as disruptive editing. Was it constructive? Yeah, you're right, it wasn't. Have you read the Percy Jackson and the Olympians or the Heroes of Olympus series? I wanted to make people smile and laugh by putting those fictional characters in their real hometowns. It's a cool easter egg. Is there anyway we could leave it on the page until Oct. 10, which is a few days after the final book is released? I completely understand the purpose of Wikipedia and how we should not have silly contributions on these pages. It's supposed to be informative, I get it. However, it would be really really nice if you could do that. If not, I understand. I sound silly; I'm sorry. Snguyen1116 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Snguyen1116: I think you already know the answer: this is not the place for that. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

List of songs about the September 11 attacks and List of comics about the September 11 attacks

Why are you reverting the merges? If you have these two lists, you should have articles for all the lists about art, on-screen, and written references about the 9/11 attacks too, since these sections are also too big. There are lists that exceed 100 kB, so huge lists like those in my previous revision is not out of the norm. BTW, I've moved the classical music to the song article. Epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And I've undone it... Before we talk about the merits of the merges, which I will be happy to with in detail, let's talk first about how you performed it. You did not use any edit summaries.[3] Can you comment on that choice? postdlf (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to make a summary, which would have been something like "Merge to page on common topic" for all of these edits (including the classical music edits). Anyway, I have transcluded {{Copied}} on the talk pages to provide attribution: {{Copied|from=List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks|to=List of songs about the September 11 attacks|to_diff=625233409}}. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you're right about the talk page template (I haven't seen those before), but I think in any event you should have still linked to the articles you were merging from in the edit summary. Changes that big should never be made without comment.

On the merits, WP:SIZE alone dictates WP:SPLITting the main 9-11 list, which takes me twelve screens to scroll through without the content you want added there. Your merge nearly doubled its size, from 48k to nearly 83k. The songs and comics lists are certainly substantial enough to stand alone, and we even have a prior AFD endorsing the songs list as a standalone list. I also don't think the classical music should be merged to the songs list because 1) those works are not "songs", and 2) the songs list, which is already plenty long, is clearly formatted to handle popular songs that are released by recording artists on albums. The classical music just doesn't fit there.

I think if anything should be done to overhaul the parent "cultural references" list, it should be changed into a list of lists (or into a topic article giving a prose overview), with the literature and film list sections also split off. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I confused music with songs. Sorry.

Anyway, I'm thinking of proposing a split. I'll go about that soon. Epicgenius (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

why you delete miss grand international 2014

I try to create Miss Grand International 2014 I don't know How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millyblue (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the text in the pink box at the title you want to recreate. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (2nd nomination)

List of 1998 FIFA World Cup controversies was also nominated under this debate and needs closing. SpinningSpark 09:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Court case information box
Thank you for your "Big Fat" contribution Court case information, for quality images of animals, plants and arts, for taking care of articles for deletion, and for noticing ownership, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court justices by party

See here and here. (I am notifying you because you participated in the earlier discussion on these categories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NYPD Blue season 1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NYPD Blue season 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: This was removed because someone incorrectly replaced it with a much larger file contra NFC policy (not to mention with a file that had worse color balancing). I think I've left you a similar comment before about always checking the article referenced in the file's NFUR before tagging or notifying that the file is orphaned. A good proportion of the time, the orphaning should be reverted, as it should have been here. The now-orphaned replacement file was File:NYPDBlue S1.jpg; I suggest you tag it and then look into that editor's other uploads, as it seems they have been uploading a lot of large images of DVD cover art and so may be going around replacing other properly sized files. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Armstead

I've recently created an article for Peter Armstead, the previous article was deleted back in 2011. Having played for Wakefield Trinity, I believe he meets WP:RLN, particularly has he played in a notable game, i.e. Wakefield Trinity beating Australia. Is there any way to view the pre-deletion versions of the article? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted versions, so now it's all visible as part of the article history. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about deletion policy

Hi, I'm writing to ask for clarification about Wikipedia policy. Another Wikipedia user and I were quite baffled when we realized that the article for a very prominent Vietnamese actor was deleted due to "lack of notability". We both felt that the entire deletion process was poorly handled and biased (since the actor in question is not western or from a prominent film industry). The deletion discussion (which can be found Here) came to a consensus that there were a lack of independent references. In actuality, there were an abundance of high-profile English language sources from American publications that would verify this actor's notability (which we included on the restored article). We both worked together to restore and rewrite the article, while I left notes on some of the editors' pages about the situation because I wanted to remind them not to be so hasty in deleting articles in the future. I wasn't trying to be petty, but rather felt that this entire situation had a lot of implications for the articles of a lot of foreign public figures who may not be relevant in the west. With Wikipedia's diminishing user base (especially non-American), we run a risk of having a ton of articles about non-Western figures deleted by biased Western editors who are making decisions based solely on their personal knowledge base and experience. Now there is a disagreement between one of those editors (User:Mdtemp) and I over Wikipedia policy. While I understand that the burden of proof is on the editor to provide references for an article, isn't it also true that editors who are nominating and ultimately voting for an article's deletion should at least do a basic check to see if references exist before making their decision? As you can see on the deletion page, the editors who voted for deletion all claimed a lack of verifiable sources, when that was far from the case. Now one of them is claiming that since the burden of proof is on the article as it was written at the time, editors have every right to vote such articles for deletion without doing any research. I feel like there should be more attention to verifying such matters before boldly declaring that an article should be deleted. Am I in the wrong?Khocaon (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who nominates an article for deletion is strongly urged to follow WP:BEFORE. An article should be kept or deleted based on the topic's potential, not based on its current state. And you're certainly right that we should be cautious when the topic involves a non-western subject because of WP:systemic bias. When I closed that AFD, there was no indication within the discussion itself that the participants had missed anything, and no one offered a substantive argument for keeping (just an unsupported assertion). Decisions are made by those who show up. But decisions also aren't permanent here, so luckily a mistake in judgment can be undone later, if that's what happened here. If this is an area of interest for you, I'd recommend keeping a watch for new discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Vietnam (or whatever your specific focus is) so you can help make sure the right decision is made. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification! I'll be sure to watch that page.Khocaon (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Shulman article

If as the record shows, the decision was DELETE, why is the article still there? i. e. why hasn't it been deleted? Goblinshark17 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You've obviously since figured out that it was recreated after having been deleted. Some suggestions for the future: 1) Don't ask a question about an article or AFD on someone's talk page without providing links. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to figure out what you're talking about. 2) Please follow proper deletion procedure when nominating an article.[4],[5] Did you notice after you posted it that the AFD you started did not look like other AFDs, that it was missing some parts? 3) When an article has been recreated after a deletion discussion, you can try tagging it for speedy deletion first, though if there's at least a reasonable case that its reasons for deletion have been cured (such as more sources if it was deemed not notable) that will likely be denied. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this is my first attempt at deleting a Wikipedia article. There's a learning curve involved. Goblinshark17 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Virginia Supreme Court case

Template:Infobox Virginia Supreme Court case has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD Zef

Hi Postdlf, re closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zef: I'd forgotten that there was an old merge discussion still underway Talk:Die Antwoord#Merge_proposal_Zef which I unintentionally duplicated in an AfD (the merge tags were probably removed). I've checked all the sources listed by keep !voters and none are independent of Die Antwoord. Do you consider it proper for me to pursue my attempt at reinvigorating wider participation in the stale merge without the AfD prejudicing it (if that makes sense to you). Widefox; talk 15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the AFD would prevent merging from being discussed. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

11th birtday

Longevity barnstar
Happy Wikibirthday. You are fomenting the Comedy of the commons. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect AfD closure link?

You added a template to the Up North talk page that says the recent AfD for the book was closed as "speedy keep", but the linked AfD is pretty clearly closed as "delete". -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The closing script I used must've gotten confused; here is the corrected page, with the other missing AFDs (and DRV). Thanks for pointing that out. postdlf (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Silvia Hartmann

Please may you reconsider the deletion of the Silvia Hartmann article as her crowd-sourced book The Dragon Lords has just been included in a new book "The History of the Book in 100 Books" published by The British Library as being an example of the future of publishing. Alex Charles Kent (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Fiction Set In xxxx" topics

I would like to voice my displeasure at the move in the subject line. I just read through most of these articles (many for the second or third time) the other day and gained immense enjoyment from it. It is entertaining to see what authors predict will be the "hot button" years of major events, and as a fan of event speculation and an aspiring science fiction writer, I find these articles extremely useful. It is a shame to see them taken down. Please reconsider.

Kenn Beck

Article feedbak/assessment request

Hi,

Undersigned had created article Legal awareness in may 2012. Since then I updated and improved the article many times in past one and half year.

I will be happy if you help me in reassessing tags in article namely {{Multiple issues|confusing|date=February 2013|reason=Laudable effort has been put into this article, but it seems rambling and incoherent.}}{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}

and also

may be article is due for udating class status futher from {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Mid}}.

I suppose a peer feedback will help me improve the artle content still further. You are one of experinced and active WikiProject Law members, and I request your kind support in this respect.


Mahitgar (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

List of swimmers

Hey, Postdlf. Can you take a look at List of swimmers, and share your reactions? IMO, the list is ill-defined, incomplete and indiscriminate, and should either be broken up and retasked or deleted. Because you are one of our resident experts on the notability and suitability of list topics, I would like to discuss this list topic with you further when you have some time to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and let you know if I have any comments. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: So it seems to basically be complementary to Category:Swimmers by nationality, but is clearly less complete. I don't see it as indiscriminate provided these are all swimmers who are all professional, competitive, and/or accomplished, and not merely people who can swim, just as I'd expect of the Category:Swimmers category structure (or Category:Cyclists, or Category:Runners, some of the many human activity categories that pose the same threshold requirements to be meaningful). Once it is expanded, it would certainly be reasonable to break the more populous nationalities out into sublists such as List of British swimmers, which would also be in a better position to be formatted into sortable tables and then annotated. Any other questions? postdlf (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and my apologies for being slow to notice your response, Postdlf. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Day

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution Day, "The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)" due mostly IMHO to the absence of good refs dating from prior to the article's creation in 2005. However I just recently found [6] which demonstrates the term was "Published in TES Newspaper on 6 December, 1996":

"Schools trying to link religious, moral and spiritual education into the wider framework of group assemblies will find here a calendar listing the main religious festivals of the six main faiths, the United Nation's designated days of concern, profile-raising days of the main British charities, anniversaries of major figures whose lives embodied important values and days of special interest to those dealing with children [... November] 24 Evolution Day (Humanist - publication of Origin of Species)"

and also note "Dates to remember in 1999" [7] from same that mentions "Evolution Day: anniversary of publication of "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin (1859)"

As per WP:DRVPURPOSE I am contacting you to "[discuss] the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion" as this appears to me to be a case where "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." -- Limulus (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked on my talk page if I would reconsider my "delete" vote against the Evolution Day article I made a few years ago based on a new source you found. I think the mention in the source you mention is too brief to make the topic notable. However, a quick Google search reveals a bunch of new references that were not there in 2011, and this one [8], this one [9], and most especially this one [10] would make me consider the topic to be notable enough to justify an article. So if I were to vote today I would vote "keep". Decisions on notability should always be subject to revision based on new sources. Good luck getting the article back and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links; I'll post updates here. -- Limulus (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation in such cases is always to post to DRV to get a "clean" and clear result permitting recreation, on the argument that new sources have come to light since the AFD that now establish the topic's notability. Just be sure to clarify at the outset that you're not challenging the original AFD as having been incorrect at the time as that usually gets you nowhere. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance! -- Limulus (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: ==Deletion review for Evolution Day== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Evolution Day. 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. -- Limulus (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: "(speedy) allow recreation" :D -- Limulus (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)

I'm curious why you deleted this page - Marty2Hotty (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Any guesses? postdlf (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bombing Run

Hi. Could you please restore the Bombing Run article? This gametype is not unique to the Unreal series, it also exists in Arena Wars, and has equivalent mode references in Tribes: Vengeance and Nox. Also the new game mode in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, called Uplink, is pretty much a copy/paste.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Hakken (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those links are supposed to establish: four of them don't even mention that term, and the other three only mention it. Clearly no basis for notability. The AFD was unanimous and much of what you're saying seems to have already been contemplated by the participants. But let me get a second opinion...
@Masem: video games are one of your main editing areas, right? I'm not seeing anything here to merit recreation, but maybe you can help this editor figure out whether this could be an appropriate redirect or disambiguation page. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

help me

chairman of state bank of india page help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratanvijay (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Valor (MMA)

I recently created a page called Valor, an MMA organisation based out of Tasmania, Australia, it has since been deleted. I understand if it does not meet requirements to stay on Wikipedia, that is fine. However I have reason to believe the article met several requirements. If the article was not up to standard, please explain exactly what needs to be fixed.

Is there any way to get the article back, so I can look more into what needed to be fixed?

Regards Brogan4217 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to look at something, you need to give me links to it rather than make me hunt around for whatever you're talking about. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valor_(MMA) 122.149.157.120 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not a proper wikilink. When you read through the articles for deletion discussion that is linked in the deletion log, what did you learn? postdlf (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I learnt that Wikipedia admins delete articles that are new and not of relevance or interest to them, instead of giving the article creators a run down on what needs to be fixed. If I was given ample time and opportunity to find credible resources, we would have been fine. What's done is done, I'm not particulary bothered now.

What I would like to know though, and I quote; "This was previously deleted by AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VALOR) but they have only gone from no events to nine." as stated by Peter Rehse on the 1st of December. You can find the statment here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valor_(MMA) I don't question Admins often, nor do I argue with referee's, but Valor has had 15 events in two and a half years, with two more scheduled for January and February 2015. Where did Peter Rehse get 'nine' from?

Regards Brogan4217 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

At AFD, admins delete articles another editor has nominated for deletion based purely on the consensus achieved in the discussion, which here was left open for the standard seven days and no one even attempted to present an argument to keep. If you have "credible resources" to present that were not considered during that time that would establish the notability of Valor, whether per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, you can do so at WP:DRV.

You'll have to ask Peter Rehse about his comment, though whether he had said 15 instead of 9 would not have changed the outcome at all, and in fact his observation that it had staged any events since the last time it was deleted is what made him list it at WP:AFD for a new discussion instead of for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly I counted nine from the article but 'postdlf is correct. I nominated it for discussion since I thought there were enough changes that a Speedy was not warranted and that notability was far from established. The consensus was that the MMA organization was not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Notables

Sorry for jumping on you here. It was pure frustration. My sincere apologies. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I gathered that. What makes these things escalate is unwillingness to let things go, the need to answer every perceived insult. All of that generates a lot of noise that hides the signal of who is initially stirring the pot. At least I'm not aware of you previously having feuds with other editors... postdlf (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Most of my edits have been to Mississippi, and there's a very supportive group of editors there. I've added most of the ghost towns on the Mississippi River, and love seeing new edits appear. The only editor I've ever really had an issue of significance with is him. Over the past few weeks I've added some long-lost places to New Jersey, but have had nothing but trouble. I seem to have lost my support at ANI too, so I'm giving up on New Jersey, at least for now. Thanks for understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

personal copy of a deleted page

Hello there

A page I created (List_of_people_who_studied_graphic_design_but_are_notable_for_other_pursuits) was recently deleted. I would like to have a copy of it for personal use. Could you help me with that?

thank you. Yot80 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

I would look at User:T&Tdad as a probable sock of the Redban / Percentagesign editor. BMK (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Baseballump1937 BMK (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong about the latter. BMK (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
T&Tdad was pretty obvious, Baseballump1937 less so. I suggest a sockpuppet checkuser investigation, which might help identify which IP(s) they're using so we can block that. I just blocked 108.41.160.197, which Redban had been expressly associated with, so we'll see if that helps. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. BMK (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Article now re-worded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That's super. Next time you spot anon. IP scum removing sourced content with no reason, let me know! Merry Christmas. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Computer Economics

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Computer Economics. 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. Fscavo (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

List of spiral galaxies

Hi postdlf, although I don't object to the keeping of List of spiral galaxies after the deletion nomination here, I don't see how such a nomination could have been closed as keep. Rather, I see it as a clear "no consensus" close. Of course, both would result in the article being kept, but could you please give me a rationale for closing this as "keep" when the !vote was evenly split (including the nom (me)'s vote), and neither side appeared to have stronger arguments? StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The keep arguments were stronger. The only substantive deletion arguments, "it can't be comprehensive" or "it's too long", are weak in and of themselves, and readily rebutted by limiting the list to notable entries and/or splitting the list into sublists. postdlf (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Even as the nom, I admittedly agree that the arguments were rather weak. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Postdlf/Archive26&oldid=1238355297"