Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone. Click here to leave me a new message
I don't mind that the discussion has ended, and been moved - but is it now going to be archived somewhere, as I've just asked editors at Talk:American and British English differences to look through it? Thanks, Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the errors section usually gets blanked after the issue is no longer an issue but this one maybe deserver archiving. Feel free to copy it to where you feel appropriate. Greetings, --Tone 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tone,
I wrote an article on the model Vanessa Ford but it was deleted. What needs to be done/edited in order for it to be reinstated? She is very popular in SA and think she deserves one since she is profiled in SA's Elle magazine where are I got this info from..perhaps I didn't source it correctly? Sandro1211 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Sandro1211[reply]
Hi. The article was deleted after a discussion, the problem was that there are not enough sources available. If you can find them and rewrite the article with proper sourcing, I don't see a problem. Regards. --Tone 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for the delay. I still think it would be better if you rewrite the article completely, in this way it will be easier to stay neutral... Regards, --Tone 15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just came across an article on Francis Cavanaugh which might be a hoax (see the discussion page), and had been discussed as an AfD here, but has not been deleted (or has been restored) - Coming from de:WP, I'm not familiar with the en:WP procedures so I just wanted to leave a note, as you were involved in the AfD decision. Regarding the alleged references, the book by Enright doesn't mention anyone by this name, and page 114 is about the Kraft Foods Company. Searching the "Gold Coast" book via Google Books also doesn't yield any results on "Cavanaugh". Finally, the book by Jacob Terrence does not seem to exist outside Wikipedia and other freely editable web projects [1] ... I suppose that this might also concern the articles Francis Killian Cavanaugh, Lucas Cavanaugh and George Cavanaugh. --JBirken (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2010 Slovenia floods, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. What was deleted was a test page with two sentences - no real content. So, basically, there was no article. --Tone 15:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Long ago myself and the creator of Avalon; the Legend Lives (Yehuda Simmons) created a Wikipedia article to deal with a growing interest in the history of the game. We wanted to address growing misconceptions about which games existed back in the late 80s and early 90s; we wanted to place Avalon within its correct context in the Wikisphere and to debunk any potential new misconceptions and myths surrounding our genre of game. As a game and a business, it is without doubt very influential and important, ever since 1988. It was the first commercial MUD on the internet ever created; its codebase is 100% unique and in its own language specifically suited to the task of text based multiplayer games; it debuted the famous affliction-based combat system which later has appeared in other games; it was the first unique game system of its kind; it is now one of the most sophisticated games ever created (with a game manual set to beat the Guiness World Record for longest game manual); and it is godfather to many games that have since appeared in an attempt to copy or emulate Avalon's success. I think it is very important to have an article correctly explaining Avalon's creation, its history, the kind of time it inhabited, its sources, its influences, and correctly referring to Avalon throughout Wikipedia for those who are interested in text-based games and role playing games of this genre. These are two areas in which Avalon since its creation in 1988 has had a consistent and important impact, more than qualifying itself for an article on Wikipedia, so I would like to know why this article was deleted and what I must do to reinstate it. Thank you for your attention. - abonyi (aka Cornelius on Avalon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonyi (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article was deleted in the prod process, the problem was that there were no sources and that it read as an advertisement. However, as you show the topic is relevant and can have an article, so I invite you to write it from beginning. Regards, --Tone 15:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Bossman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Tone. The article should be rectified. According to [2], the first constitutional session will be held on 12 November 2010 at 10 am. No. 6: "5.Poročilo Komisije za potrditev mandatov članov občinskega sveta in ugotovitev izvolitve župana in ugotovitev izvolitve župana Občine Piran" (translation: "The report of the Commission for the confirmation of the mandates of the members of the municipal session and the finding of the election of the mayor of the Municipality of Piran"). At that session Peter Bossman will only become mayor! --Eleassarmy talk 11:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'll add the source. --Tone 12:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The" house arrest? Shouldn't it either be "her" house arrest or just simply "house arrest"? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says so in the article. Probably better without the, on the second thought... --Tone 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Tone last year i created an account i think back in november and its called User:Cameron Edward Tyler and i forgot my password to my old account and i really badly want to get my old account becouse silly me put personal infomation about myself and my age and also birthdate and back then i did't not really care back then and it was that first time i was using wikipedia back then. you can also tell that i have not edited my user page sence november But i realise i should not put infomation about myself and i will never do that again is there a way you could please reset my password if you do could you please send a message on my user talk page in talk so i can remove my infomation about myself and change my user name thank you User:Cameron E. Tyler—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron E. Tyler (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I can't reset your password but I have deleted your old userpage so that no info is shown. This should fix the problem. Regarding getting the old user account, you can get it back in a process called usurpation, for this please contact one of the bueraucrats, WP:BUR, as I don't have that privileges. I hope that helps. --Tone 07:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, apparently you were supposed to have been notified before Fire It Up (EP) was moved back into the mainspace. The article is back in the mainspace and is up at AfD, and another editor has requested userfication because you were not notified of the move. I personally believe the article should be kept (the references have been improved), so I am writing to let you know about this if you want to participate in the AfD. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was looking at an article about female kickboxer Frieda Gibs and sought more information one of her trainers, Saekson Janjira. I clicked his name and noted that his profile had been deleted, the reason given as "non notable trainer". I can't help but feel that his removal was ill-informed and that a reinstatement would benefit Wikipedia users. Saekson Janjira's credentials include the following:
• 6 Time Undefeated World Champion
• 30+ years in Martial Arts
• Karate and Kickboxing Hall of Fame
• Over 200 Professional fights
• World Light Weight Professional Muay Thai Champion
• Former Muay Thai Champion of Lumpinee Stadium
• International Sport Muay Thai Association (I.S.M.T.A.) Champion
• World Kru Muay Association (W.K.M.A) Champion
• Intercontinental Champion of the (W.K.A)
Additionally, Saekson Janjira was Muay Thai instructor to Neal Rowe, who currently trains former UFC middleweight champion Rich Franklin.
Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.255.187 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As the article was deleted in prod process, I have now restored it and sent to AfD, in order to get a consensus there. --Tone 08:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you add more descriptive edit summary for ITN edits. It would help significantly with follow-up. --Kslotte (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'll try to be more elaborate next time ;-) --Tone 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello. You deleted Amir Brakmic a short while ago. He is a Bosnian volleyball player at international level and played for Bosnia's most successful team OK Kakanj, multiple League and Cup Double winners. He was knocked off as part of the gradual attrition of unsourced/inadequately sourced articles originally created by non-Anglos and now remorselessly being removed by Anglos. I've repaired and referenced one AfD, the Bosnian international team captain, and tidied up four more team mates. I can't waste my time chasing after every non-Anglo AfD target but I'm game to tidy up the members of this team, almost all of them internationals. Would you be prepared to agree to reinstatement? Just some international confirmation [3] / [4]Opbeith (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sure, I can restore the article but you'd need to provide better sources than the two you mention... one does not even mention the guy and the other says all players were born 30.09.1973... An article on a living person needs some sources, otherwise it's better not to have it. Any language will do. --Tone 20:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Re your comments, the point is that this is the International Federation's site (FIVB), the first reference is the specific round robin pool and the second is the team - click on Teams in the sidebar on the first page, then on B&H - I thought it would make it clearer to give you both URLs. So the official team make-up is registered with the international federation, it's just that FIVB for whatever reason didn't get round to completing the rest of the player details on the website. I'll round up more sources for you once I've secured the other players still at risk of being flushed away. In this case it's not ipso facto better not to have them because the absences make the representation of the OK Kakanj League/Cup winning players - almost all of whom were internationals - anomalously patchy when there are lots of informal references of them together, blogs, YouTube, so common sense suggests it's not really an enormous conspiracy, it's just that it takes time digging out hall-marked refs when you've got a lot more important things to do but know that it's going to take a lot more effort to retrieve the remains rather than securitise the prospective victims.
I'd like to ask ask you to allow the same for Amir Curan - here are some references for him - this time three years later FIVB aren't just giving the teams, they're actually giving the player's details as well. Also source Pol and Fr WP.
[5][6][7][8][9]
Have spent too much time so far today, if you want more I'll come back another day. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly already. Opbeith (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you want to see how others shine up a little with a bit of spit and polish, Sanjin Bezdrob was the starting point, Ermin Lepic one of the others.Opbeith (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Amir Curan in person - red shirt - at row 11 down, picture furthest right [11]Opbeith (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all the references you provide are about the team. For a bio article you need references that are directly about him. And WP articles don't count as refs. --Tone 08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
notice still and absence here, can we have those banners?Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, by all means, add them if you like. Personally, I am not a fan of those so I don't give them around. However, there are several people at ITN that take care of that, I believe. --Tone 05:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to reconsider the rapid deletion of this article which has been around for some years. Four days over the Christmas holiday to hear from people seems a bit shorter than is custom.
Well, the article was deleted in a standard procedure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Prince, and the consensus was quite clear... However, you can always start a deletion review. --Tone 10:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion review process indicates someone objecting should take it up with the administrator who deleted the page first. Looking at the policy:
"An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion
I believe you were in error deleting the page since Dec 26 to Jan 1 is under 7 days. I.e., it wasn't standard procedure.
You might hold off a couple of days before restoring the page. I have an email for Jesse and if he doesn't want it, then keeping it deleted would be OK if a little irregular.
Hi. You're looking at the wrong page - proposed deletion is something else. And Dec 26 to Jan 1 is exactly 7 days, we're not counting hours here. The consensus to delete was clear, as I said, if you disagree, start a deletion review. Best, --Tone 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dec 27, 1 day
Dec 28, 2 days
Dec 29, 3 days
Dec 30, 4 days
Dec 31, 5 days
Jan 1 6 days
Please correct me if you disagree with this counting. Keith Henson (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, considering that the nomination was made in the evening... I'll leave it up for an extra day. --Tone 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly well known inventor, who made a perpetual motion sculpture. Why did he stop existing in the Wiki ( your deletion )? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.14.19 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article was deleted back in 2006. And the reason was that it was a bad article with little content and no references. Feel free to write it from the scratch. --Tone 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely, all these nominations are ready to post. GreyHoodTalk 14:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voila, posted two. The cholera outbreak also seems to be ready soon, I'll just wait and see if there's any more prose coming. --Tone 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tone. I've expanded the article about the 2011 World Men's handball Championship, reverting the tense and adding a report about the final. The nomination is supported for posting, but there is a risk of low traction by the administrators. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Watch out for the nominations about Kosovo and the world's longest borehole, they seem to have consensus and are updated. Also, perhaps you just haven't noticed my question about the Bandy World Championships,: would you change your vote to support now that we have only two sport items on ITN, and if I perform update of the article? GreyHoodTalk 00:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were responsible for posting the ITN item for Jordanian PM appointment. I'd like to refer you back to WP:ITN/C in regards to suggestions (also here) of bumping the Egypt protests in favour of covering the broader 2010–2011 Arab world protests. Thanks. --NaturalRX 21:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good idea. Unfortunately, I don't have time in these days, so I can't help you right now. At least not methodically: if you start, I might edit sth. after you, but don't take my word for it. Sorry. Another thing: I strongly suggest that you move the stuff you cut to the History of Slovenia article: the thing is that the main article has been a bit neglected recently, and should be expanded, why the history section in the Slov. article should be shortened. (Now I'm being a smartass about it, but I'm afraid this is partially my fault, as well.) Anyway, you're completely right, and I'm glad something has taken the courage to do what it has been suggested already many times in the talk page. Good luck with it! And again: do try to move the stuff to the main article. It would really make sense. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a hint on how to proceed (of course, it's on you if you want to follow it or not): I think that especially the side mentions (for example on arts and literature in a certain period) should be removed/moved to the main article. And maybe some of the figures (like number of victims in WWII), as well. Again, I'm a bit contradicting myself, cause it was me who inserted them in the first place ... but it was in a good faith. Now I realize they should be in the main article, not in the "Slovenia" history section. Cheers, Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, you did a great job. Actually, as I feel this section is better than the History article, do you think it can simply be replaced so that we keep all the content? Or, eventually modified a bit (merging two articles is always a painful job...) Then, the history section can be made shorter in a couple of iterations (just did some of this work on some of the sections). In any case, this will take a while to complete. So, please, keep an eye on my work and jump in when you feel necessary ;-) --Tone 17:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! The History of Slovenia article is now as it should be (although, of course, there's still plenty of space for improvement). This was really needed. Now, let the massacre begin ;) Unfortunately, I still have very little time. I will try to check out your edits in the Slovenia article, though. I'm sure that eventually we'll manage to find a good balance between conciseness and exhaustiveness. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I agree it should be redirected, but it does not appear anyone has actually closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/11/11 as such. Were you planning to do so?
Funny, I thought I closed it... apparently it did not save the change. Fixed now, thanks for notice. --Tone 21:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Although it's at the bottom of the list, is there any chance that the blizzard entry could be posted given that the article is improved to a reasonable level in time? It appears to be more recent than Cyclone Yasi. I am currently working on integrating more information about Canadian impact into the article, so it should be "ready" soon. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.
It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.
Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)
I am wondering exactly what additional proof needs to be allocated or displayed to prove the credibility of the organization? I had given a source directly from the IRS that had the foundation listed as 501(c)(3) public charity (non-profit) status. I have also tracked down a few more links for you to check out to further display the needed information as to reverse your deletion decision.
Hi. The best way to get through this would be if you talk directly to people who supported the deletion. My closure was an administrative action. If they agree that the sources you added are sufficient to establish notability, I will gladly restore the article. Best, --Tone 16:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Shahbaz Bhatti, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi,
Recently, you have deleted number of players profile from the Serbian White Eagles team in the Canadian Soccer Leauge (CSL).
I believe that these pages should be returned for the following reasons:
The CSL is growing and it is a leauge where young players advance to the next level such as MLS or Europe
FIFA website also shows results from the league
The CLS has a TV coverage in Ontario
The news papers have coverage from the CSL
The Toronto FC reserve team plays in this league
This league is supporting the next level of soccer league (MLS - US and Canada)
Some players played for Canadian National Team (U-20)
Some players went and will be going to soccer tryouts in USA or Europe
The wiki pages for these players will benefit the players and inrease soccer interest in Canada
Hi. The criteria for biographical articles about sportspeople are quite strict, but your reasoning makes sense. I suggest you contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports and check the situation. If they agree, the articles can be brought back. Regards. --Tone 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=419977215 -- In this change you made the comment of "better wording". But, I think in fact it's the exact opposite of what happened. The "no" vote would have been to create a new constitution. The "yes" vote would have been to create a new constitution. I put a request to revert that change to the old wording on the ITN template talk page. I'm not sure what the right process is/was to request something like this. Thanks, Jeff Carr (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't see the discussion where you suggested the wording that calls it a "new" constitution. I will go and suggest that the wording is incorrect on the WP:In the news/Candidates page directly. Sorry for the noise here on your talk page. Jeff Carr (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG i don't know if you are acutally a fan but I love firefly I assume that is what you meant by your "shiny" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.228.240 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi i created fleshrot wiki page, why has it been deleted? can u put it back up please
matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.226.11 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tone. I see that the page for Tights and Fights was deleted because of this: Lacks reliable 3d party refs. Now that I've got some 3rd reliable party refs, can you please help me revive the page? Thanks a ton. Dearskittle (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As it was a prod deletion, I'll restore the article so you can work on it. Good luck :-) --Tone 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check it and see if anything should be posted? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I posted BRICS. Mubarak has a consensus also but the update could have more sources and a sentence or two more. --Tone 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do it? Sorry to ask but my boss is up my a$$ and I am work at the moment so I cant really do it and I have no idea when I will be done. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Viator Slovenicus is a Janša theorist. He is not a Wikipedist. Everything he adds is unsourced. You will not throw him out of the garden for his political views, but for the fact that he adds nothing, ever, without a single source. Watch him- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.253.180 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find some content that is not sourced, mark it as such. Statements, especially in biographies, should always be sourced. I suggest you contact the user directly if you think he/she could do better. Regards, --Tone 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How could you delete the Rabbits Article for Farthing Wood.[edit]
Bring back the Farthing Wood Rabbits article or else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.240.225 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the article's exact name again? Or else? --Tone 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007 you deleted the newly created entry on Deep Learning with the comment "Non-notable narrow jargon term, not suitable for encyclopedia". Since then, the field has grown and matured, and I invite you to consider the following evidence.
numerous workshops, including workshops in the main machine learning conferences:
* Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning Workshop, NIPS 2010, December 10/11, 2010, Whistler (BC), Canada.
* Cognitive and Neural Models for Automated Processing of Speech and Text (CONAS 2010), June 9-10, 2010, Ghent, Belgium.
* Deep Learning for Speech Recognition and Related Applications, NIPS 2009, December 12, 2009, Whistler (BC), Canada.
* Gatsby Deep Learning workshop, July 8–10, 2009, London, UK.
* Workshop on Learning Feature Hierarchies, ICML 2009, June 18, 2009, Montreal (QC), Canada.
* Deep Learning Workshop: Foundations and Future Directions, NIPS 2007, December 6, 2007, Vancouver (BC), Canada.
and more are upcoming.
numerous published scientific papers, including a review paper of the field that I wrote in 2009 and appeared in Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning
(Learning deep architectures for AI). Go to http://books.nips.cc/ (the proceedings of the most important machine learning conference) and type 'deep', and you will get 133 entries. I only looked at the first page of results but all of them had to do with Deep Learning.
sessions, tracks, keywords, tutorials or topics devoted to the subject (sometimes also called Deep Architectures) in some of the major machine learning conferences
- NIPS 2007 and NIPS 2009
- ICML 2009 and 2010
- AISTATS 2010 and 2011
- Learning Workshop 2010 and 2011
Is that convincing enough? In 2007 the field was nascent (the first papers appeared in 2006) but it has grown substantially and I believe that it does now warrant a Wikipedia entry.
Hello. Nice background research! Well, the article, when I deleted it, had just the following content: Term used by the SSAT in its work on Personalising learning, and in the publication Deep Learning 1 by Emma Sims. Refers to the cluster of gateways - Assessment for Learning, Learning to Learn and Student Voice. So, not much to salvage. I suggest you rewrite the article from scratch, it will be better this way. Regards, --Tone 16:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to post an article on Mango Languages, the foreign language learning company. As the past deleter, would you please offer some insight into your decision to remove it and what you feel could help to sustain its position on Wikipedia?
Could lend credibility to a page previously deleted for blatant advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseyschnell (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The most recent deletion was a result of a discussion. If you can address the issues raised there, I see no problem with rewriting the article. Best, --Tone 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think a those concerns mentioned can be addressed through these third-party sources. dbusiness, Shrewsbury Lantern, in addition to the PC Magazine article. Would that be enough to get started? Thanks, Kelseyschnell (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks promising. Go ahead :-) --Tone 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When userfying pages, please remember to use some form of {{NOINDEX}}ing; {{userspace draft}} is usually appropriate and also helpful. cheers, Rd232talk 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will remember next time. --Tone 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles in wiki about smaller production companies and film distribution companies.
Why discrimination about my company. My company has distributed "Scream 4" theaterically in India and distributed many mainstream bollywood films like Ghajini, Tere bin laden, Rakta charitra, Aisha, jhoota hi sahi, rann, dharm etc it is a popular company in indian film industry and is reputed, if you search cinergy independent film services, you will find info and proof of our work(not large traces but certainly that much which will assure our genuine nature.
I am curious to know what needs to be done to put our company name in wiki? what will it take?
Hi. We're talking about Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt Ltd, right? The problem with the article was that there were no sources that prove notability. In all the references in the article, the company was just mentioned as a distributer while the focus was on the film. So, in order to prove notability, you should find third party sources that are about the company. Being a big company, that shouldn't be too hard. I hope this helps. Regards, --Tone 16:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objects of His Dark Materials until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page was for an artist of one of the biggest rap groups in hip-hop today, Young money. It was deleted because you and some of the admins said he wasn't notable enough I guess. As of now I don't believe that is true anymore for multible reasons. One being he's been in three music videos that were highly popular (and made it above gold on the record charts I believe), Bed rock, Every girl and I don't like the look of it. And another being he's on multiple tracks for Young money, Lil wayne(Albums "Rebirth" and "I'm not a human being" as far as I know) and Birdman. He also has two mix-tapes with artists from young money like Lil wayne, short dawg, t-streets and nicki minaj. and other artists, one of which being waka flocka. he also has a collaboration album with artist lil flip and has been featured in a lot of other songs and music videos. I also think its very unfair that he can't have his own wiki page but other artists from young money can that have the exact same popularity. Being a fan of him myself I would love to see for him to have his own page, and if notability is the main issue then I would be more then happy to provide third party references on his page. Thank you Tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightyagamixryuk (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your reasoning makes sense. However, as the article was at one point deleted as a result of a disussion, I suggest you turn to deletion review and present your arguments there. If the guys decide the notability is there, there's no problem with recreation of the article. Regards, --Tone 07:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tone. On 13 April you moved BRIC to BRICS. There seems to be some consensus on Talk:BRICS that this was not optimal and that two separate articles are needed. They are asking for some of the history to be moved back. Could you look into this again, because I know nothing about this. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank yoy for your response. I would appreciate it if you could forward my request to the WikiProject Sports ( see below my request. I could not find the way to contact the WikiProject Sports.
Thanks,
Valmntg
Hi, Recently, you have deleted number of players profile from the Serbian White Eagles team in the Canadian Soccer Leauge (CSL). I believe that these pages should be returned for the following reasons:
The CSL is growing and it is a leauge where young players advance to the next level such as MLS or Europe FIFA website also shows results from the league The CLS has a TV coverage in Ontario The news papers have coverage from the CSL The Toronto FC reserve team plays in this league This league is supporting the next level of soccer league (MLS - US and Canada) Some players played for Canadian National Team (U-20) Some players went and will be going to soccer tryouts in USA or Europe The wiki pages for these players will benefit the players and inrease soccer interest in Canada
valmntg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmntg (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The criteria for biographical articles about sportspeople are quite strict, but your reasoning makes sense. I suggest you contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports and check the situation. If they agree, the articles can be brought back. Regards. --Tone 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmntg (talk • contribs)
Hi Tone. I noticed you just added Jiaozhou Bay Bridge to ITN. Could you also add ULAS J1120+0641? It's been marked as ready for 15 hours, and I've provided a corrected blurb at the bottom of the discussion. Modest Geniustalk 10:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering why you have deleted the page on John Pappa?
20:39, 15 June 2007 wa when you deleted it.
Sincerely
Johanna shy (mail removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.35.220 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article was deleted because it was really short and did not establish notability of the person, a prerequisite for biographical articles. If you have new material, you're welcome to rewrite it. Regards, --Tone 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss the nominations is at the ITN/C page. I follow it, don't worry. --Tone 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think there's a major issue with TEL repeatedly marking his own Arab Spring nominations [Ready], and when warned about it, forum shopping for admins to post it. It's clear he has quite a big COI in this area and my opinion is that you should not post it unless someone unrelated to the discussion marks it ready. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I got my own personal stalker on wikipedia :D All I did was point out that the article has been updated and that we havent posted anything in the ITN section for the past 35 hours. Anyways, This will be last time I ever nominate anything that has to do with MENA if it will make everyone happy -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tone, was just writing to you to ask why you deleted Jamie Lunghitano (Kickboxer)? he is a notable person from Perth, Western Australia who is making a name for himself as a genuine Australian born athlete fighting Muay Thai and Mixed Martial Arts. He has even fought for the WBC Muay Thai Super Middleweight Title. Please reinstate the article or provide me with direct information as to why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muaythaiaus (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There was a discussion about deletion, here. The issue was the question of notability on a larger scale. If you think you can address it, I suggest you to contact the nominator directly. I hope that helps, regards. --Tone 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can the fighter has fought for the title and happened to lose by split decision. still he was a title contender and the rematch for the title will be taking place. If someone has done something honourable I think it is only fair to allow them to be recognised. How do we reacquire the deleted content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muaythaiaus (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you want, I can copy the content to your userpage so you can work on it. Let me know. --Tone 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was trying to get background information on Dava (Donna) She Wolf because she is now involved in a new band called Stars & Daggers with x-White Zombie bassist Sean Yseult, when I saw that you deleted a She Wolves page. I was going to create another one, but figured I should contact you first to find out why it was deleted to begin with.
As a founding member of the Cycle Sluts From Hell, I think all Donna's related projects are worthy of listing at Wikipedia. The She Wolves performed and recorded with members of the NY Dolls, the Ramones, Jayne County, etc. Although never commercially successful, She Wolves is really a part of rock history and a cornerstone of the NYC punk scene.
I think these are the kind of things Wikipedia needs to document. Things you won't find elsewhere. When people want to dig deeper, to get the full story from those who were there, they go to Wikipedia. Please don't let them down by denying them access to the unique, the bizzare, the underdogs and the lunatic fringe.
Thanks!
Chatterbox16 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article was deleted because it was really short one and had no sources (though not establishing the notability of the subject). I invite you to start it from scratch and address the issues I mentioned. Regards, --Tone 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding U2 360° Tour to ITN. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep it there, but I was wondering if you could add "in 30 countries" to the end of the blurb. I think it would be good just to show how internationally diverse the tour was. Here's a source.[12] Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21:47, 27 February 2008 Tone (talk | contribs) deleted "Ornament and Crime (album)" (WP:PROD, reason was 'Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources.'.)
It is my humble opinion that Ornament and Crime is a masterpiece and the fact that it is not released is a tragedy. I have no affiliation with Matt or the band but I did play with in a band with Matt years ago. Ornament was finished and put on the shelf and never released. Then the label dropped Self and won't give him the rights to his masterpiece. I have a copy of it and I can tell you this is a crime that the world can't hear it. But it is real.
Forrest York
Murfreesboro TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yofodb (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Hm... is there any coverage available for this album? We cannot really have an article without references... --Tone 18:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cant update the page at the moment cuz Im being attacked in Tahrir, If I came out alive and in one piece, I will will add more content to the article -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stay safe... --Tone 19:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do deleted articles go for view by editors?[edit]
Where do articles go that are deleted from article main space? Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The articles that are deleted can usually still be accessed by the admins but not by everyone (that's the point of deleting them). If you would like to access some specific content in order to incorporate it into another article or similar, let me know. --Tone 07:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you deleted a page on Balbriggan RFC, a rugby club in Dublin, Ireland. It appears that this was done because it was not notable enough. What is the criteria for notable, and do all clubs have to be notable?
I ask this because most of the other clubs in the league "Lenister League Division 3" continue to have Wikipedia pages. Also, a host of other small Irish sports clubs also have wikipedia pages. Do you propose to delete these also? Emmetfahy (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a bit confused here, the AfD result on this article was keep and it was not me who closed it... Some useful guidelines regarding the notability of rugby clubs are otherwise here. Regards. --Tone 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't think I made it clear on ITN/C, but I didn't see the section later in the Gaddafi article that detailed (reports of) his death when I removed the item from ITN. I only noticed that the early part of the intro and infobox hadn't been updated (and, of course, the protection). Had I noticed the section, I may have just removed the protection and let it stand on ITN. Sorry about that. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. --Tone 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tone! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I hadn't seen that reference at all, from the format I must have thought it was an External Link. Nice catch! Zidanie5 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries ;-) --Tone 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tone, in 2008 you deleted the article Gemmenne de la Peña. The reason mentioned was Non-notable actress. In my opinion de la Peña should be notable for playing in movies, such as Erin Brokovich, The Weather Man and Towelhead. Especially in The Weather Man she has an important role as the main characters (Nicolas Cage) daughter. Yesterday I wrote her article in the German wikipedia, see de:Gemmenne de la Peña. There is also an article in pt. See als http://www.imdb.de/name/nm0478810/. Would you mind, if I start a new article, based on the German one? Kind regards, --NiTen (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sure, go ahead. The article I deleted was in awful shape, two sentences and no refs. So it's better if you start from scratch. Regards. --Tone 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your feedback. Regards, --NiTen (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is the proper place to voice my concern over a deletion. The list of 70 plus things does not have my name, Rhonda Rydell, that someone else created and was recently deleted by what appears to have been done by you, Tone. That name is what I was able to evaluate has something to do with the deletion.
Anyway, if not, then I guess this should be deleted also. If so, then I must say of my disappointment for something that was created here about me that I felt honored about and has been clicked onto enough times to be generally on top with my website in different search engines. The information that was on it was sufficient, something I, myself, had commented on somewhere on the page itself before.
In short, you do what you have to do. If you had discussed it with others, then that is your, as a group, decision after a discussion. Regrettably the only thing that I am at times called, made fun of, and sometimes is even correct, is that I can be a dumb blonde. This is one of those times. I have no understanding of the process that was taken and to find it, that is where the term "dumb" comes into play. I even have no idea how to find this page once I submit it, let alone any reply that might be given. So all I can do is ask that my page, a page that my fans have checked out over the time it was up, be reposted and if that is to be graced, that the biggest page before the deletions took place, be the one reposted since when I saw it maybe almost a year ago, it was a full page with all pertinent information.
Thank you for your time and once again, I apologize if this is being posted in the wrong place and that I might never be able to find my way back here easily.
Yours,
Rhonda (Rydell)
November 5, 2011/Saturday
PS: I also do not understand the intructions at the top here that says to sign this page with four tildes. This is what is wanted?... Rhonda Rydell (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC). I have no understanding as to what that means or why that must be.[reply]
Hi. Sure, I am the guy who deleted the article so it's the best way to contact me directly. So... the article was deleted following a discussion held here. If you have a look, you'll see that the nomination says that what was written in the article, did not meet criteria for a biographical article (links to specific policy pages in the nomination). No personal issues whatsoever. As there appeared to be a consensus to delete the article, I just carried out administrator action. Now, there's always an option to reinstate the article, but then all the issues have to be addressed, meaning better sources and probably some more coverage. I hope that helps, regards, --Tone 12:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(and yes, --~~~~ in the code becomes the signature after you save the page. Really convenient)
"The subject received extensive coverage, including scientific papers". Really? Can you tell me where these 'papers' were published? There has been nothing whatever published in any recognised peer-reviewed journal (as would be appropriate, per WP:FRINGE). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there has been coverage, if nothing else, because of all the controversy this has generated. If this turns out to be a scientific scam, then the article would eventually reflect that. --Tone 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected my closing statement so it doesn't mention scientific papers. The point remains. --Tone 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you think that 'scientific papers' had discussed the E-Cat or not? If you did, your closure was clearly based on a misunderstanding. If you didn't, why did you suggest they had? BTW, I note that you closed the E-Cat debate 11 minutes after closing another AfD. Was this all the time you allowed to read the discussion and arrive at your decision? This would seem a rather short time, to me.
As for what the article will 'eventually' reflect, I fail to see how that is an argument for keeping it now - per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Still, whatever, I'm obviously in a minority over this issue - I should probably leave the article to the hucksters and cold-fusion-faithful, since they seem to be in charge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was the sheer amount of the publicity. With time, the article will certainly develop and improvements can be discussed on the talkpage. At the moment, the article already reflects the fact that several people have issues with the reliability of the invention. So it is developing in the proper way to represent a balanced view. Regarding my time of reading, you'll see that many arguments are really repetitive so it does not take so long to read through and get a big picture. At least that's my opinion. I rest my case here, I am not planning to get involved in the topic further. --Tone 14:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Several people have issues with the reliability of the invention". Is that supposed to be funny? A man with a known history of dubious failed 'alternative energy' schemes constructs a device which supposedly produces power by a method unknown to science, refuses to disclose how it works, refuses to allow independent verification, and starts selling shares in his 'enterprise', and you think that 'several people' might have issues? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call it an euphemism. --Tone 14:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as a result of the phrasing he used in his AfD closure, Tone could well find himself at the centre of a new cold fusion ArbCom case. Some circumspection was required in the closure, since the subject matter was intimately related to at least two previous ArbCom cases, both involving advocacy in cold fusion. One of the main contributors to the article, User:Brian Josephson (Nobel laureate in physics) has a well-documented record for acting as an advocate for fringe science, including cold fusion. Jimbo Wales has very recently mentioned the unreliablity of sources like the Daily Mail, used in the article, describing it as a "tabloid journal". It has a negative reputation in the reporting of science (no high level newspapers in the UK touched on this topic); no academic journals have made any comments so far. Perhaps Tone could explain here whether he was aware of issues involving cold fusion on wikipedia and previous ArbCom cases. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contributions of one user and statements of a founder do not have any impact on the community's consensus. I don't see what point there would be to getting ArbCom involved when multiple administrators (and consensus) have already agreed that this is notable, scam or not. m.o.p 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I assume that you agree with my closing statement and the keep action? Regarding the ArbCom, if this is an ArbCom case, why did the article ever come to AfD? It's better to solve any possible issues there. --Tone 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I stand by your keep. As for why this came to AfD, I haven't the faintest. m.o.p 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MoP, can you let us know who these 'multiple administrators' are, and how you know that they have 'agreed'. And come to think of it, explain why 'multiple administrators' get to decide deletions: I though that was supposed to be the community's job, and admins had no more clout in the process than anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I've read the WP:ANI tread. MoP's (premature) closing statement makes sense, actually, it's a bit more elaborate than what I've written afterwards. Andy, remember, administrators close AfD discussions when they feel the consensus has been reached, it's always one person who does that. The discussion was open for a week. Relisting would make little sense as all points have been brought up already. Other option would be a no-consensus close, that would also result in keeping the article. Simply, the consensus was not a delete. That's it. --Tone 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Early closure
In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors ample time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe.
Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days".
Yes, seven days. That's how long it was running. Today is the eight day since the nomination (October 30), works perfectly fine with me. --Tone 17:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec'd) I'm trying to assume good faith, Andy - I really am - but your persistent jabs and ridiculous questions (nobody ever said that administrators alone decide deletions; I've been talking about consensus this whole time) are starting to look like attempts at antagonizing people. Please, take a breather and re-evaluate your actions. Your vigour is appreciated, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a battleground. Cheers, m.o.p 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As closers, both Master of Puppets and Tone appear to have ignored ArbCom sanctions on cold fusion, which unequivocally cover this article (note I voted for merging not deletion). As far as I am aware, ArbCom sanctions take precedence on wikipedia, particular where advocacy is involved. The AfD could probably not be fairly described as a "community decision," since an undetermined number of SPAs voted. Nor are poor sourcing or individual statements the main point here (sanctions on cold fusion already cover sourcing and could be used to make reports on individual editors for advocacy at WP:AE). Is there really any doubt about the relation to cold fusion and previous ArbCom rulings? Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you directly tell me what you think I did wrong? I found an AfD discussion, felt there was a consensus to keep it, SPAs or not, closed it as such. The ArbCom case as I see it (just had a look) was about certain users edit warring over the content of the cold fusion article. It has nothing to do with this particular AfD discussion. Sorry, I still fail to see any problems regarding my actions on the policy basis. Or can you point me to a section in the ArbCom decision where I can read more? --Tone 18:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing in this article is subject to sanctions laid out by ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Principles, particularly point 10). The link to the subsequent Abd-William M. Connolley case appears in a template at the top of the talk page of the article. That requires higher standards than the popular press and primary sources, as in all articles related to cold fusion. I have not checked how many of the participants in the AfD were single-purpose accounts; since advocacy has been a problem with cold fusion (there are at least three permanebtly banned users), that is relevant here. All these problems were mentioned in the AfD debate. It might be a good idea slightly to modify the closure statement to remind editors of these special principles, possibly with just a link to the original cold fusion case. I doubt very mich whether the article will be stable in the foreseeable future. It certainly does not conform to the sourcing recommended by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense, ArbCom is good to mention. How do you suggest I modify the closing statement? --Tone 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment you have:
The result was keep. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore an existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here.
Perhaps this could be amplified too:
The result was keep. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore the existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here. Editors are reminded that the editing and sourcing of this article requires special care, as outlined in a previous arbitration case on cold fusion.
Perfect, I agree. I guess we've sorted this out now. Thanks for your input. --Tone 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, Tone, I totally endorse everything that you've been doing on this, including the collapsed section at an/i. I certainly hope nothing I did made things harder. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, it all turned out well at the end ;-) --Tone 08:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to an example of you closing an AFD as "no consensus?" Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember any particular cases at the moment, sorry. --Tone 14:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find one either. I am concerned that you are not following the guide to closing AFDs - please review Wikipedia:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. After having reviewed that, please reconsider closing the Energy Catalyzer AFD as "no consensus" as opposed to "keep." Note specifically the multiple challenges to the reliability of sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I stand by keep. --Tone 14:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered the page on Rhonda Rydell has been deleted
I should be the creator of the page ( cannot access the chronology of the edits so cannot check it)
According to deletion procedure, I should be warned about the proposal of deletion and participate to the discussion.
Apparently the procedure has not happened accordingly
Beside not agreeing with user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz his motivation are not exhaustive and appear to be argumentable: he argues essentially that "little reference" on Internet Movie Database are a base for not being enciclopedical. I am arguing is a good page, nor it should or not be in wiki. But this is a fact driven and reference driven place.
and the facts are:
1) I was not contacted
2) I was not able to dispute the allegations
3) motivations appears non solid and nor fact driven
In light of this: is the decision reversible or at least can I be given a chance to partecipate to the discussion for voting?
cheers
The Lone RangerHit me with a good one! 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yeah, sometimes not everyone follows the procedure by the book... I suggest the following: read the deletion discussion carefully (link somewhere above). Then, if you can address the issues - namely sources that can endorse notability - start a deletion review at WP:DRV and present better sources there. Let me know when you do this. The article is salvageable but some work needs to be put into it. Regards. --Tone 08:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I do not have a copy of the article on Rhonda Rydell. could you make it awailable for me in any way so I can look into it? cheers. The Lone RangerHit me with a good one! 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hey hello, I was just observing then I decided to just share my thoughts:
You closed the afd correctly with 8 weasel wording "delete" vs 42 "keep" among which many "strong keep". The 8 editors don't have to like the consensus, the AFD was closed. Why cry like this about it? Is it really such a big deal this article exists?
The motivation for deletion is completely fraudulent, it isn't even a valid afd. Then there are perfectly good guidelines that say what we can and what we can not cover. Why cant we use those? We are now at a stage where large groups of editors are lumped together as if single purpose accounts. Of course we show up, wikipedia has been "trolling" innovation long enough with this "peer review or all the professors are liars" baloney. This time 50 new users showed up who actually care about the article.(More on this below) Soon we will see a fake consensus for deletion. It is in the making.
I don't think you show allow yourself to be pressured into reopening an afd with this explanation:
"Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got the whole university backing you."
It has "look at me I'm a trollolololol" written all over it. There are no arguments to debunk because there are no arguments in this AFD. We require special quality AFD nominations for cold fusion related topics.
this is all nice talking points] endless bla bla bla bla. But it doesn't change that there are 1600 fresh news articles about the E-Cat[[13]]
And 50 new users for 1600 articles isn't so strange. Where else should people look first but Wikipedia? If this doesn't establish notability we might as well put [[[Jimbo Wales]] up for afd for not being note worthy and a know fraud etc. We can just make up fraud acusations for an afd cant we? This is how we do AFD right?
5 - all those new users citing WP:Notability should not be counted as real users,> WP:BITE they are part of a big conspiracy > WP:OR
6 - delete the article
You really see nothing wrong with that? Seriously? They wasted everyones time with this AFD, got rid of the new users. Isn't it time they produce one valid reason for article deletion? Just one would be enough. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed you deleted the page on Rhonda Rydell.
Beside having not being informed (according to normal procedure in Wiki) of the deletion, I was not able to take part to the discussion. IMHO motivation appears somehow arguable: despite having only 2 movies and few appearance I recall (and it is in my user page) Jimbo's idea of wikipedia: free access to information, and I might agree that my article on Albiruni or on other economic topics are much more interesting and "encyclopedic". again IMHO the motivations adduced apprear not to be solid ground as principle for deletion. What I mean is that I have found other 30+ wiki-pages of biographies with less than Rhonda Rydell's content and references.
As I did not have been informed in the deletion procedure, can I ask you to review your decision according to [Wikipedia:DRV] wiki deletion review procedure? She has over 1.4 million pages linking to her, despite she retired in 1998, she has an interesting story behind. She is not famous for the Confidence Man (very few know about this) , but she was well know before.
looking forward to hearing from you
Cheers
The Lone RangerHit me with a good one! 12:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I never care much about those credits, sorry... Probably we could arrange some bot to give them. If it's for collection, feel free to add one yourself. Good work with the nomination, otherwise. --Tone 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've drifted into deleting at AfD earlier 7 X 24 hours-- its not a good idea even when its obvious, unless you actually call it a snow or it qualifies for speedy--and I don't see the point of calling something snow that late in the game. Not that it gives the wrong result, but it tends to encourage others to go too fast also. (and it doesn't give the new admins a chance to show they know what to do). DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I always pick the last day in the table, that's eight day counting backwards. So I can't be more than a couple hours wrong at maximum... I don't remember closing something snow recently. --Tone 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Lojze Slak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Bill william comptonTalk 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
