User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 11

Deletion Review

Hello!

I'm very new to Wikipedia so I am hoping I'm doing this right! I found your page through the deletion of the page for songwriter, Jenna Andrews.

I believe someone had flagged it for sock puppetry; however, this claim was unsupported as there are numerous sources to credit her success as a songwriter. These sources include All Music and respective artists' wikipedia's and all music whom she has worked with and written for. For example, Noah Cyrus - Stay Together .

I have worked with Jenna before and simply attempted to make an edit to better highlight her career as a songwriter, but did not intend to cause any reason for deletion! Was unaware of the previous editing history that occurred on this page. Happy to discuss further if you'd like and provide more sources if need be.

Sydneyjacobs (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)sydneyjacobs[reply]

Long story short, simply being credited on songs isn't enough. Basically, writing songs is her job and simply doing her job doesn't make her encyclopedically notable. If you read the deletion discussion, the other two participants note that they can't find enough reliable sources that talk about her to indicate she passes our general notability guideline. Based on those arguments and the fact that there were no counter-arguments for keeping the article, I closed the discussion as delete. Unless you can provide reliable sources that pass our criteria (see the link) to show notability, I am not going to undelete. You are free to request an overturn from the uninvolved parties at deletion review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore

Please restore World Roller Hockey League to my sandbox. Trackinfo (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at User:Trackinfo/World Roller Hockey League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources including three major media. But trying to take it to mainspace ends up in a logjam of circular forwarding. Please assist in putting it back to mainspace.Trackinfo (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been unfucked for you :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Quinncroft

Hi Premeditated Chaos. The just created Billy Quinncroft popped up on my watchlist, and normally that only happens when a previous version of an article which was on watchilist hase been resurrected from the dead. Anyway, it appears that you deleted an article with the same name back February 2017, but I'm not sure if ithis latest incarnation is the same or different. The editor who created this latest version is a new account whose only visible edit is the creation of this article; moreover, their user talk has yet to be created, so there's no way to know if they were involved in the previous version. Anyway, I understand that prod-deleted stuff may be recreated, so I am wondering it if might be better to move this to the draft namespace before it gets tagged for CSD or BLP Prod in order to give the creator some time to work on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about the creator being called "Footballagent123". That just screams COI to me. I'd say move to draftspace, but the guy's league is only semi-pro and doesn't qualify for WP:NFOOTY. I'm going to take it to AfD since it's obvious this is going to keep being re-created if it gets PROD'd again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

I totally misunderstood a previous suggestion about MfD. Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:43, July 7, 2017‎

Ohh no need to apologize or self-whale, lol, we all make mistakes :) By all means give it a PROD or an AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in the Big Blue House

I see that you changed page protection for List of Bear in the Big Blue House episodes. Could you also do that for Bear in the Big Blue House as pretty much all of the edits there are vandalism as well? Adamtt9 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenniasbeautychannel

Yuck. Persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augh, like trying to swat a fly with chopsticks, it just kept buzzing back around. I must've fucked up salting it after #4 because she was able to come back and create it a fifth time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never been able to eat Asian food with chopsticks, let alone to deal with pests with chopsticks. However, I would also have a lot of difficulty trying to swat a fly with a fork. I would be much less patient than some administrators are about when to use the alkali metal halide. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'd hate to block someone if I can convince them to play nice, so I try to be patient. Doesn't usually happen but you never know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bawab Article

Hi

Hope your well please do not revert the bawab article as it is relevant informatio, since the Egyptian Revolution the "bawabs" have committed many crimes and made people feel unsafe. This murder was particular unsavoury but not unusual. The bawab usually is a unwanted law to themselves that will harrass, intimidate, steal electric, water and gas and have a large criminal record and also poison feral dogs and cats. It's of particular interest that people are very wary of them and cautious, both foreginers and Egyptians. Source: Ongoing Experience here in Egypt

If you want to make the point that there's an increase in crimes by bawabs, you need to cite reliable sources that say so. We can't base something on your experience, that's original research. One crime does not constitute a trend. Also, by full-reverting instead of just editing, you're also undoing my other work like removing the maintenance tags and cleaning up the prose. I'm reverting your edit again; please don't revert back until you have reliable sources that talk about a trend of bawabs committing crimes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE)

Hi

I would like to request that the article Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE) be undeleted. It was deleted due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is a list of relaible third party sources for the article I would be happy to include as references if the article is undeleted.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore it to Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education, please add the sources shortly or it may be at risk for being re-nominated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --John Cummings (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WPTR1000

Hi, would you like to add Pinargözü Cave to the list in Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey) ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! I didn't even know that was a thing. Yes, I'll go do that :D ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Freddy Awards

Can you please explain your reasoning for closing the AFD for The Freddy Awards as a delete? It would seem to me that, since no further votes or discussion was generated after was relisted twice to generate a clearer consensus, it should have been closed as a No Consensus rather than a Delete. And I know there were technically two delete votes and only one keep vote, but I'd submit that the two delete votes were rather weaker arguments (one even acknowledged itself as a weak vote) and the AFD guidelines specify that the debate is the not a vote. Not trying to complain, but I was interested in your reasoning? — Hun ter Ka hn 20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording about generating a clearer consensus is boilerplate. It doesn't mean that a discussion has to be closed as no consensus, just that the relisting party thinks there ought to be more discussion. Other parties (such as myself) may disagree and opt to close without relisting again. When counting numbers, keep in mind that the nom is also a !vote for delete, so it's actually 3:1, with the 1 keep being you, the creator of the article. I have no problem with you taking the discussion to deletion review to have more sets of eyes examine my close, though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFB note

I saw you self reverted - think the protection crossed your edit. Your commentary, if you still want to place it, can certainly be added to that page's talk. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scype

Why you have removed my page? Scype! (Unsigned comment by Kamervishi moved from the talk page of one of my personal sub-pages to here)

Because a project by two PhD students that isn't even off the ground yet is not notable per our standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Carter IV

Hey, PC. Just giving you a heads up about that I created a request for reinstatement of James Carter IV over on WP:UNDELETE. I would argue strongly against the delete being uncontroversial; due to the quick action on PRODs, neither I nor any other contributors to the article had a chance to argue against the proposal, and I think it would have been handled much more effectively at WP:AFD. Cheers. Rockhead126 (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I strongly disagree with your assertion that a PROD is overly hasty, however: it gets listed for a week just like an article at AfD does, and since you can just remove the PROD tag at any time for any reason, it's much easier to dispute, since you don't even have to make an argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have taken this to AfD per your suggestion; Twinkle notified you on your talk page but just in case you come back here for some reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Getting It (film)

Hello. May you please undelete just Talk:Getting It (film) (not Getting It (film))? It should be considered G8-exempt. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry about that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Oil

People had already objected to deletion at the Deletion Review. Therefor it was not an uncontested deletion to be removed by Prod--it needs to go to afd. Please undelete and send it. Of course, since it was just a prod, I can do it msyelf. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, people objected to the A7, but apparently not the PROD since it was never removed after the DR. But I concede the point and will undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for proper process, but I think you guys got a little silly here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alif Oil -- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, but you're not really supposed to refuse a request to undelete a PROD and I'm not really here to dig in my heels on something that pointless. So I undeleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion Review

Hi there,

I would like to request the un-deletion of the page "Eric Berkowitz" due to, "Promotional articles with clear promotional-like content in the information and sources, none of which give better convincing substance for notability."

Here is a list of additional sources I would like to include if the page could be un-deleted:

Advertising Week Getting It Made Humble Acquires Paranoid US Launches Sister Shop Postal AICP Member Directory Singtrix Guitar Hero Webby Award Winners Humble Champions A Force For Good Advertising Week AICP Panel Humble TV Limited Liability Company Adverts Handle With Care Stuff We Love - Gillette Takes Cannes

Many Thanks.

Rh118 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a paid editor connected with Berkowitz or Humble studios? I find it extremely suspicious that your only edits are to create Berkowitz' article, twice, and substantially edit the article for his production studio, Humble. I also find it suspicious that the intro of the Berkowitz article you posted is substantially similar to one that was deleted in 2015 but posted by another user, ElizabethHumble - who also only ever edited the Humble and Berkowitz articles. If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it per our conflict of interest policy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for your sources:

Do you have a timestamp for where Berkowitz himself is discussed in this video?
This is a source about Humble, not Berkowitz.
Membership of a trade organization is not suitable for establishing notability.
Not bad actually, this discusses Berkowitz a little along with his company.
Exec producer credit on a minor piece of content that won a Webby doesn't really confer notability.
Again this is about Humble, not Berkowitz himself.
Hosting a panel doesn't confer notability.
Business listing about Humble, not Berkowitz himself.
Legitimately can't access this one right now but will check it later.
This is an article discussing an ad that Berkowitz' company helped with. Maybe demonstrates notability for the ad spot but again, not for Berkowitz.

Overall only one, the Singtrix article, really discusses Berkowitz as a person. The rest talk about his company, which doesn't automatically make him notable by association: notability is not inherited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pınargözü Cave

On 26 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pınargözü Cave, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at over 10 km (6 mi), Pınargözü Cave is the longest cave in Turkey but has not yet been fully surveyed? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pınargözü Cave), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 12:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to re evaluate Zebronics page protection

Hello Premeditated Chaos, I here by request you to unprotect the page Zebronics from creation. This is a one of the most known organisation in India as you can check it with GOOGLE searches, so kindly un protect it and give good editors from India a chance to create a page on that topic. Thanks and Good Bless (Ayushmanbhava (talk))

Absolutely not. The page has been repeatedly recreated against consensus at three different locations that I know of (Zebronics, Zebronics (India) and Draft:Zebronics). After an AfD, the article was salted for repeat recreation. At Articles for Creation the draft article was re-submitted numerous times without improvements, suggesting that the editors have no interest in abiding by our policies and only wish to promote the company. This led to the MfD where the draft was deleted and salted. A sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infozeb/Archive) found that numerous sockpuppets have been used to promote and recreate the article.

Which leads me to you, showing up here with an account just created, inserting external links to the company's websites in list articles (even after reversion which is quite cheeky of you), asking for the article to be unprotected so you can write it? And how interesting that your userpage is entirely stolen from User:Owais Khursheed and falsely asserts that you are a rollbacker and reviewer. I think you are another Infozeb sockpuppet and ~~I will be opening a sockpuppet investigation.~~ I think I have reasonable grounds to block you on that suspicion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Lee Burns

On 29 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Lee Burns, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Lee Burns, a reformed convict from Oregon, was the subject of an interstate extradition battle between Oregon and California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Lee Burns. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Lee Burns), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

I see you've raised concerns about me... I appeared on wikipedia to correct what I thought of being dodgy in here, pretty much like SubRE done but after admins talked me into correcting articles I have done so. I crossed Phase as I was browsing Anathema's page and then checked Asouko's edits and logged in and tried and revert the edits unsuccessfully. And it ended up being some sort of Vendeta. I don't know what's wrong in that really. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed you've done a great job Reading all the logs and that which I had done the first three days of the thing my self, it appears that Hibaghanem was a photographer from Syria and the account being not used makes sense, Syria being a warzone. All the edits she's done where changed by Colonieschris. About Asouko I don't think being protective over an article you've created, and SubRE can be proved useful for wikipedia if he is reading the guidelines before he is waiting anything. But that's just me again. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What raises my eyebrows is that you showed up, supposedly as a brand new user, and no more than 10 minutes after you registered your account, you started tag bombing other bands with the exact same tag combo (even in the same order!) as had been placed on the Phase (band) page. That's extremely unusual behavior for new editors. Most n00bs will copyedit here or there, add in little factoids, or maybe try to create a new article. But turning up out of nowhere and slapping piles of maintenance tags and CSD tags on a slew of articles all in a row? It's unusual to the point of absurdity.

Both you and Asouko have extremely similar writing patterns, with grammar and spelling errors and overuse of ellipses, you have the same obsessive interest in a select few articles, you have the same tendency to go running to other music-focused editors asking for "expert" help. You guys are not passing the duck test in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PMC, hope you're well. If you don't mind, I'm copying this discussion to the ANI. MusicPatrol, please continue your discussions on WP:ANI and not here. Warmly. Lourdes 01:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent work in draft space: it's an area I generally stay away from, but on the odd occasion I wander there I am always impressed with your work to keep our encyclopedia clean and an encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rabbitkettle Hot Springs

On 4 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rabbitkettle Hot Springs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Rabbitkettle Hot Springs in the Northwest Territories are both the largest tufa mounds in Canada and the only known tufa mounds on permafrost? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rabbitkettle Hot Springs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rabbitkettle Hot Springs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Lightbox

Hi PC I see that you deleted our company page from Wikipedia Lightbox Ventures

www.lightbox.vc

Is there any thing i can do to get it back?

We're a venture capital firm based in Mumbai, India. Our portfolio companies include some of the most respected tech companies in India. 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)~~

I took a lot of trouble to put that page together and would really appreciate your help in building it back

Thank you

Tina Trm5y (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't write about your own company on Wikipedia. It's a conflict of interest because it's downright impossible to be neutral about your own company. If you're that important someone else will write about you eventually.

Second, no, because the article was half promotional spam and half copy-pasted directly from your own website. We are not here to host advertising. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Jacobs Medical Center article over redirect

Hi again PMC, thanks for your help with the UC San Diego Medical Center, Hillcrest article. I'm hoping to do the same thing with my article at User:TritonsRising/sandbox/Jacobs Medical Center draft, in which the draft is moved to the article namespace to replace the redirect currently at Jacobs Medical Center. Please let me know how you can help me out or ping me when this is done! Thanks! TritonsRising (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TritonsRising: done! Great work again by the way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Hello, I kindly request you to undelete "Harvard Crimson men's squash".

I did not mean to add biased information. I was only trying to start new pages about college squash just to add more valuable information about squash to Wikipedia. Please understand that I am new to this and spent many hours creating these pages. All those hours will go to waste.

Can you also let me know what was wrong so I can improve? I did not mean to vandalize at all. Would you like to help me recreate them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildkangaroo89 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildkangaroo89 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is something totally hinky going on here. You created the page with the copyvio deletion tag. The page was deleted because you tagged it for copyright problems. I also note that you created it with dated advert and unsourced tags, which is unusual to say the least. Same with the other now-deleted sports teams you created, all of them. Can you explain what was going on there? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the response, I really appreciate your time.

I think the first page got tagged as possible copyright infringement. I copy pasted the source of that page as a template for the other new pages I made. That is probably why the copyright tags were there. I did not know that at the time because I am new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildkangaroo89 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooookay. Ok. So I took a look at the three pages that got deleted. Columbia Lions men's squash is staying deleted, because that was a 70% match for this article, which means a lot of copy and pasted text. That's not allowed (please see our copyright policy for why not). You can use the news article as a reference but you need to write the Wikipedia article in your own words. Best to start that one over from scratch. Yale Bulldogs men's squash and Harvard Crimson men's squash have both been restored, compared via the Copyvio Detector Tool, and retained, because they were not actually copyvios of anything that I could tell.

I recommend you listen to the advice on your talk page though - slow down a little. Try to learn how we do things here first, and that way you can avoid things like accidentally sticking a deletion tag on your own article. There's plenty of time to create new articles once you're confident you know what you're doing. Maybe check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Squash to see if anyone there has any constructive criticism for your pages. You may also want to make use of Draftspace or your own Userspace to create drafts so you can work on them and iron out any kinks before putting them into mainspace.

Also, keep in mind that you should avoid citing Wikipedia on Wikipedia, which you've done in both of the restored articles when talking about notable former players. Obviously Wikipedia is not in itself a reliable source, so you need to cite outside sources that discuss those people, their achievements, and their connection to the respective college team. I have removed these circular citations for now; please add reliable citations soon or the information risks being challenged and removed.

If you have any questions, let me know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just dropping by to say hi to a fellow Wikipedian from Vancouver. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 15:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: hi yourself! :) Always cool to see fellow Best Coast people here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Marie Denha

Hi I created a page that is nominated for deletion,every reference I used was remove, I believe some of them were very accurate and reliable references and the page is of a notable Tv person with a list of credits . Can you please help in keep this page up? I would appreciate the help. Am not perfect with Wikipedia but getting better.. Thanks Manunited20 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved, I just relisted the page. My advice is that if people are telling you your sources are not reliable per our standards, please listen to them. We have certain criteria that we need in order to view a source as reliable enough for our purposes. Our reliable sources policy, as well as the guidelines linked from it, provide a good overview of what those criteria are and why we have them. The sources you're providing do not meet those criteria and that is why they keep getting removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of funny

It was kind of funny that you deleted Kodak Black (aka Kodak Black) from List of Haitians because he had no Wikipedia article. His article gets over a million views per year and he's a hugely popular rapper (when he's not locked up). I delete his name from that list all the time because he was born in Florida. Most important, had I not written his Wikipedia article, I wouldn't have a clue who he was either. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider me embarrassed. I appreciate your good humor about it. I saw an unlinked, badly formatted entry by an IP and jumped to a conclusion; no disrespect was intended to Mr. Black or your work on the article about him. I'll be less quick on the trigger next time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of userspace material

This is bordering on harrassmemt of PMC. Stop it now. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your closure deletion on material on my user page was unclear, therefore I reopened it. Please note that your assertion that the draft in question has not been improved is untrue as was each assertion of the other editors who commented. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the drafts today. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If you have a problem with my close, take it to deletion review. I have reverted your revert of my close. Do not revert it again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do have a problem with that deletion. It appears entirely devoid of logic. Can you please explain sufficiently so that I can have it reviewed? Your synopsis was entirely unrelated to the other editors complaint as well as the information I provided and the WP:STALEDRAFT policy I quoted.

"Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago as it is a huge mess of information unrelated to the actual topic, and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. We're not a webhost for deleted content so it's time for this to go." ♠PMC

Obviously your assertion is faulty as more than half of the original draft is already in the main space right now simply because (despite all assertions to the contrary) it had been constantly improved and was moved to the appropriate place on the main space already. the rest of it soon will be. These facts are contrary to any justification put forth for deletion. Can you re-evaluate your decision or expand on it so it can be properly understood? Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your behavior at the AfD and MfD discussions, I doubt that any amount of expansion on my deletion reasoning would be sufficient for you. Take it to deletion review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can doubt it all you want. I have reliable sources to dispute all past faulty assertions the other editors do not. BTW I see nothing called "Deletion Review" at WP:DR and threats of administrative actions unless I go though something that does not appear to exist is questionable. You should note all steps in Dispute resolution are outlined in the links I provided in MfD which you would have understood if you have looked at it...

What is Deletion Review and how do I challenge your deletion that you have yet to defend with any semblance of validity. My valid concern is that Mfd is WP is not a vote and you simply took a poll and ignored the arguments. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I've been pointing you to the wrong page unintentionally. The shortcut for deletion review is WP:DRV not WP:DR, and I've been using DR by mistake. I've corrected the links above. Deletion review (correct link this time) is a process by which one can appeal a deletion decision. You post the discussion there along with your reasons for challenging the close, and the editors there review it and provide their opinions as to whether to overturn or endorse the result of the discussion. Deletion review is essentially the final say on whether a close was correct or not.

With regards to my note on your talk page about possibly blocking you: you reverted my close because you didn't like it, which is against policy. Then you immediately re-created a page that was deleted in a deletion discussion, which, again, is against policy. My intent with that note was purely to get you to stop performing disruptive actions. I have no intention of blocking you at this point because the disruptive action has stopped. 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up the correct link. I may have to explore it. First, may we WP:DELREVD?

No, I did not revert the deletion because I did not like your decision. I reverted it because you believed and then asserted that the draft had not been improved which is not true at all. I provided a plethora of evidence to back it up the assertion that it had been improved over the last six years!!! The original draft was deleted by IAR (contrary to your assertion) and not even "rightly".

The editor who deleted it said it was Okay for me to put back in the main space (except for the length and any issues not fixed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment

Re: WP:IAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again

The discussion link explains it. I restored the sand box draft simply because any assertion such as the involved editors made (and you validated) that "the draft was unrelated to the actual topic, and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace" is blatantly false and easily disproven in the numerous discussions with the other two involved editors and in Edit summaries- which you also deleted. Your decision was motivated by those faulty assertions. Since you have not expanded why you felt the need to employ only WP:Local consensus in your decision, I am challenging it under IAR now because It seems to me at least that you clearly goofed.

In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. In another RfC held in April 2016, the community made the following decisions:...

If you would please explain why you believe you made the correct decision based solely upon the merit of each argument then we can discuss that as the next step in Deletion review if it is even necessary. I have never done before and would appreciate further direction. Without, the explanation, Ignoring those editors utterly false concerns that they continue to make and ignoring your recent deletion seems the best path forward until it is ready to publish.

I ask if you would please take a second look at the decision that you made and help me understand what you have based it on.

Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, with all due respect, I'm not arguing with you about this any more. You're not listening to me and you're misrepresenting both the wording of the nominator and that of my close - intentionally or not, I don't know. I understand that you've been working on it but I agree with the nominator and the other two participants that the problems that caused the material to be deleted in mainspace are still present in the userfied copy, and my close specifically reflects that with the statement that the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. Your failure or refusal to understand what people have been telling you about this material for literal years is verging on "I didn't hear that" territory. I am not reversing my close. I will not be responding to any further messages here. Please take your concerns to deletion review so that neutral editors can review the MfD closure. I am confident that they will confirm that it was correct and in-process. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Deletion Review

Hello,

I hope i'm doing this correctly... I'd like to discuss the deletion of the BMC_Control-M page. If it was deleted due to some outdated information i'd be happy to adopt this page and work on improving it.

In your deletion reason you also mention that 'the concept itself is not significant enough to warrant an article.', the page List_of_job_scheduler_software lists many such similar products and many of them have their own page. Control-M is one of, if not the market leader in workload automation tools and its use globally is huge.

Cheers!

Note: The only way that i'm affiliated with Control-M is that I've been using it daily for my work for the past 6 years. Joobear (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(reply left at requester's talk page due to time delay)

Template:Did you know nominations/Auesee

Please see note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the DYK thing seems to think I have fewer DYK noms than I do. I have 6 counting Auesee: Auesee, Lurgrotte, Pinargözü Cave, Rabbitkettle Hot Springs, Robert Lee Burns, Zahava Burack, so as far as I can tell, QPQ is required for me, which is why I've been doing them.

Anyway, my apologies about the hook thing on my QPQ, I don't spend a lot of time at DYK so I didn't realize I had to do it like that. My bad! I'll remember for future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ResonX/sandbox

I noticed that you deleted the page per WP:U5 and closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ResonX/sandbox. Just a note that I did not nominate this for speedy deletion/speedy delete the page because the user has actually made many contributions to Wikipedia, so WP:U5 is inapplicable. See the users contributions for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else must have tagged it for U5, I saw the MfD discussion when I saw the U5 tag. I did see that he had other contribs but given that the majority of them were trolling/disruptive to the point of getting him indeffed, I figured U5 wasn't inappropriate. But I will undo it if you'd prefer to have a full MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, an IP user added the U5 template after my nomination. I'll leave it up to you to restore the page or not. Perhaps you could just leave it deleted and update your close at the MfD discussion per your commentary above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Johnvr4/sandbox, User:Johnvr4/sandbox4, User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Johnvr4/sandbox, User:Johnvr4/sandbox4, User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat. 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. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnvr4: Hey man I'm not sure what happened but you accidentally created your DRV on August 28, not August 30, and it's not showing up on the DRV page. Just a heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I have never done anything like this before. I tried an RfC once and goofed that up too. I only clicked the link on the DRV page and it put the date in automatically... I think I forgot to refresh first. I've opened a new one and will close the first one. I am very sorry for any confusion. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something else has gone wrong and I don't want to break it even more. Can you help the helpless? Thanks in advance. John Johnvr4 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually working fine! If you clear your browser cache and look at the main page for DRV it shows up on August 30 where it should be. Ctrl+F5 should do a cache purge for most broswers I think, if not, there's an option in Preferences under Gadgets --> Appearance that adds a cache purge link to your top bar. (PS no big deal but I'm a she not a he just FYI) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I've fixed my pronouns too. Please accept my sincere apology for that unwarranted assumption. :) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens all the time. My userpage and sig both used to be bright screaming pink and even then people didn't realize, lol. Thanks for amending it :) Cheers ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to pester you again but I noticed Restore (Special:undelete) links on the DRV page request. Is that something I am allowed to press? Can you tell me what they are for? Signed, Ignorance. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quick link for an admin to press to look at the Undelete page, which shows the deletion log as well as the revision history. You can press it but I don't think it does anything for non-admins. It's been a long time so I have no idea what you'll see if you click on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can follow the link but Lowly editors get an error message. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may trouble you again, I have one last question. Is a temprestore appropriate during the DRV? If so, Do need to submit it at some place in particular? Thank you again. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an optional actions best asked for in the DRV. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my comment at DRV re: the MfD. As an 'honorary' Canadian (bestowed by some acquaintances in B.C.) which I do not take lightly, I certainly didn't mean to "vilify" you or imply that you did anything purposefully wrong. I hope you can accept my apology and understand where my frustration about those perceptions on improvements and main articles etc. were coming from. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to see you caught up my disagreements with the MfD nominating editor and in that DRV. I managed to mangle it pretty badly simply because I am learning (slowly) as I go through it. I think it sorts out the facts from the fictions and should allow all editors to have more accurate perceptions about assertions. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:Mobile Applications usage in Tanzania

You were very prompt on that one. Thanks.

It was only after I had filed the MfD that I went to the user's talk page and discovered that a slightly different version of this article had already been deleted once (or possibly twice) via AfD. I was attempting to add this information to the MfD, but got a conflicted edit with your close. So my apologies for suggesting a CSD G4 so soon after you did your work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaah shite. No, you have nothing to apologize for. I'm going to G4 that and put a note on the MfD. Shoulda known to have checked the guy's deleted contribs first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Auesee

On 2 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Auesee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the artificial lake Auesee (pictured) has become a popular recreation spot known as the "jewel" of Wesel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Auesee. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Auesee), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Written in the Scars

Hello,

I noticed you delete Written in the Scars to make way for an uncontroversial move. However, as the subject of an RfD which several editors including myself was opposed to deletion/moving, it was controversial. When the CSD was requested by Boleyn, myself and AngusWoof had commented on the talk page saying it was controversial and shouldn't be deleted. Probably an oversight, you deleted the page ignoring the talk page content and moved Written in the Scars (The Script song) to Written in the Scars. As the creator of both redirects, the page history prior to deletion was significant to me. I'd like to ask you to please undo the controversial move and restore page history of Written in the Scars before it was deleted, in order to preserve attribution. Thank you. — Za wl 09:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean...given that both are back to redirects now from being disambig pages I don't really see the point in re-deleting and moving stuff around. But I did undelete all the deleted revisions under Written in the Scars so the whole history is there now, since your main concern is the attribution (and if an article ever did get written it'd be there not at Written in the Scars (The Script song) given the lack of need for disambiguation). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Azam Khan

Hi Premeditated Chaos. I stumbled across Abdullah Azam Khan while checking on something unrelated and noticed from its talk page that the article had been previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Azam Khan. Is this recreation OK or should it be deleted per WP:G4. FWIW, the creator of the latest version did not participate in the AfD and I cannot see the article history of the deleted version to tell whether they were involved in that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's cool, it was deleted because at the time he was only a candidate, not a member of the legislature. But now he's a full member of the legislature so he passes WP:NPOL easily :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page : List_of_Latin_phrases_in_A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

Hello there.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia despite registering my username a long time ago, so I'm probably formatting even this message incorrectly - but I'm doing my best. I have long been in the habit of referring to the above page which you have apparently recently deleted. I can't link to it because, well, it's deleted? The best I can do is to link to the Talk Page regarding its deletion, so I hope this is good enough: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Latin_phrases_in_A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz.

I have read the debate on the Talk Page as to why it was deleted, and while I am aware that the page did not meet Wikipedia's standards regarding sourcing etc., as indeed many other live pages do not, I would argue that deleting such a page, very useful and extremely difficult to re-create as it is, on this basis (and because the novel itself is apparently considered "trivial", which is the opposite of the typical academic view?) does seem rather drastic, rather than, say, leaving the page as it was, with the "not up to standard" warnings in place (and in the hope of it being improved?).

This page was a unique reference source, more of a necessity than merely a "nicety" if the reader (even the highly educated reader) is correctly to understand the book it refers to. The page supported a book that is regarded, certainly in the UK, as a truly great classic novel of the 20th Century (absolutely not a "barely notable novel" (I have not heard it described thus in over four decades?) - conversely, it is usually considered as being highly influential and even comparable to 'Brave New World', for example; it is, indeed, sometimes mistaken for a solely/primarily religious work when it is actually a major work on many other levels than its ecclesiastical backdrop/partial theme may indicate: primarily dystopian sci-fi, complex psychology, and (the author's suggestion of) a recurrent self-destructive human paradigm). The novel itself is in the category of "material for PhD theses" rather than "light reading", and its usage of Latin is extremely complex and integral to understanding it; this is far from my own personal view.

The usage of Latin in the novel is much beyond the simple translation of English into Latin, or even into ecclesiastical Latin; it is considerable in extent and notable in context, and is far more subtle and ingenious than a cursory reading suggests, making reference also to historical figures, making ironical usage of normally common ecclesiastical phrases, etc. The user who contributed to the discussion named Rwflammang is entirely correct in his/her stated view, and I will simply quote him/her because I can't put it any better myself: "The meaning of the phrases used in this classic adds much to a deeper understanding of it. The criticism that much is unsourced, however valid it may be, can be easily remedied by the addition of sources, while, on the other hand, sources cannot be added to a non-existent article. The notion that Google translate could replace this article is ludicrous. The rich layers of liturgical, biblical, and classical allusion in this article cannot be explained by any machine translation.".

Please would you kindly consider restoring this formerly very useful page, which I can find mirrored on no other live site? I now have to resort to the Wayback Machine in order to consult this page, and even though I have a decent grounding in Classics myself and have read the novel many times as well, my knowledge of both Latin and the highly significant manner in which the book's author used the various Latin phrases he chose to employ is far too inferior for me (for example) even to try to recreate this page myself.

Many thanks for your consideration, and apologies again for the (no doubt many) errors in this message's formatting. Nell Smith 09:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nell. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy and practice when it comes to keeping and deleting articles, so I'm going to over-explain a little. I apologize in advance if you know any or all of this. I have bluelinked our major policies when I refer to them. Basically, we look to notability criteria to determine if a topic should have its own article. Usually, we refer to the general notability guideline, which tells us that a notable topic will have multiple reliable secondary sources discussing it in-depth. So for example the book itself is clearly notable because it has been the subject of numerous reviews, scholarly discussions, etc etc over the years. Referring to secondary sources allows us to clearly verify where our facts come from and show that they are not original research (which is not allowed here) or misinformation. Insisting on sufficient sourcing also ensures that we don't become an indiscriminate collection of random information about every possible topic. We ask for multiple sources first to ensure there is sufficient interest in a topic to require a standalone article, and second to ensure we aren't being heavily skewed by the opinion of a single author.

Back to the list of Latin phrases: where the book's article is well-sourced, the list of Latin phrases in the book had no sources, so we could not verify any of the information in it. In order for us to have kept the article, we would need to see multiple sources that specifically discuss the use and meaning of Latin in the text. It doesn't have to be the exclusive topic of whatever source, but it does have to be more than a trivial mention. So for example a scholarly review that discussed the book and then spent a page or two talking about the Latin in the text would be suitable, but a review that mentioned "the book uses a lot of Latin" and then moved on wouldn't really be. At the time that I closed the AfD, only one source had been suggested and as I stated above, a single source isn't enough for a a standalone article. (For comparison, see Themes of The Lord of the Rings, which is a well-sourced discussion of a literary sub-topic).

The consensus of the deletion discussion was to delete, so at this point without sources to support a standalone article, I am not going to restore it to mainspace. However, I am happy to email you a copy of the text if you want to hang on to it for your own reference. You're free to host it elsewhere if you like as long as you give attribution to Wikipedia for the text. If at any point you or any other users locate enough sources to support the content of the article, I am sure no one would object to restoring the article provided the sources are integrated into it.

If you have any other questions please let me know, I usually reply within a day or so depending on my work schedule. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First time commenting as well, so hope I'm doing things correctly. I read above that you had offered to email the other user a copy of the text of the deleted page List_of_Latin_phrases_in_A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz. Would it be possible for you to email me one as well? I fully understand the reasons for removal, but regardless of its lack of sources it was the best reference I'd been able to find for translating the Latin in the book. I just want the page for personal reference so that I can more fully understand the material. Thanks in advance. Bklyngrrl (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Rho

As I indicated in the AFD, I do intend to recreate Delta Sigma Rho as a redirect to Delta Sigma Rho/Tau Kappa Alpha which will be an article about the second group referenced in the original page. This organization, unlike the one at Vassar originally mentioned is a National Forensics Honorary (http://www.dsr-tka.org/). Just wanted you to know as deleting admin.Naraht (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just a discussion-closer, I had no horse in the race. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Restore Joshua Shemer

Hi! Can you please restore Joshua Shemer ? I have supporting references to reliable sources that directly supports material in this article, and I will update them when you will restore the article. Thanks!

Done, please add them soon or the page risks being deleted again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello

may i know the reason why my page will be deleted please inform me thank you

Replied at User:Djb0xwell. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prod tag

I removed the prod tag you placed on Tom Cranston as the individual passes WP:BIO. All the best. Bobo . 11:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? By virtue of which of the 3 WP:ANYBIO criteria? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not "kidding you". I repeat, the individual passes WP:BIO. Bobo . 11:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS is secondary to WP:GNG, which he clearly does not pass. Which was clearly noted in my PROD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:N. "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Bobo . 11:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with NSPORTS, specifically:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

I have bolded the most relevant portion for your convenience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:N. "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Bobo . 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? And when one looks at the relevant criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, in this case NSPORTS, one sees that the topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. How is that unclear to you? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you come to mention it, this is precisely the debate we were having, that the two guidelines were contradicting each other. Here lies the problem with policy makers... Bobo . 11:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see that as contradictory. All it's saying is to follow the instructions on the relevant page. Some of the SNGs, like NPROF, are specifically exempt from the GNG. Some, like NSPORTS, don't - they just provide guidelines so you can tell where someone is likely to have GNG-worthy sources and shouldn't be speedied.

Anyway, I put it to AfD (I'm sure you got the talk page template but just in case) so we'll see how the community feels about my reasoning. For what it's worth, I have been proven spectacularly wrong before with sports bios and GNG before. I recently nominated Frédéric Boniface for AfD having done what I thought was a fairly strong WP:BEFORE, but even still I had people turn up and WP:HEYMANN the living bejeesus out of it. It's entirely possible that there are sources out there for Cranston that I couldn't find that will get brought up in an AfD.

(And for what it's worth I apologize for being bitchy initially. I shouldn't have been snotty with my original comment.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and have been busy elsewhere. Likewise, I apologize for sounding frustrated. The fact that the two guidelines are contradictory is frustrating. Bobo . 12:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh that's something too, the notability criteria for most things has been tightened somewhat in the last few years (certainly way more than when I started and created Church of Jesus Christ Elvis, lol, RIP) so if you're just coming back off a long stretch of not editing, it can be a bit of a surprise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I'm not saying that the notability criteria have changed in the amount of time I've been absent from Wikipedia. I'm saying that the two places in which the notabliity criteria are mentioned completely contradict each other. Nothing in terms of notability criteria has "tightened" in this amount of time. If you wish to debate whether the notability criteria should change to allow two, three, 500 first-class appearances, you are free to start a conversation to change the criteria on WT:CRIC... But please learn why these criteria exist, what these criteria represent, and why we don't change it based on almost a decade working with the same criteria. The fact that you are glorifying your own vandalism in doing so is probably not helping your cause in believing what you do about notability critieria... Bobo . 16:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Bear Dunes

The reason I removed the page number, in this edit is that normally when someone uses |pages=347, it's a mistaken attempt to indicate that the book has 347 pages, not that the information is found on page 347. That's all. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not come ask instead of just removing it and tagging it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]