User talk:WilyD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Plato and Aristotle discussing something. Unexplained:Plato's laptop.

Page Deletion question[edit]

Boxing Ego deletion. Hii i was wondering if i can grab an archive of the deletion of Boxing Ego, I want to try and do it within the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacbradley2 (talkcontribs) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello i was currently working on my page RedArcGaming and was deleted in the proccess by you, could i ask how it was advertising.

You have an itchy deletion finger. Comedy Dynamics was deleted without any discussion or consideration and it shouldn't have been. The organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, including The New York Times. Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance and the organization has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture and entertainment. Just because large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability doesn’t mean smaller organizations and their products can’t be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I put a page up, Republic Metals Corporation, which you deleted for not having notable sources. I would like to put the page back up, but rather then linking all of the sources to Republic Metals website, as was done before, link the citations directly to the independent sources. Would this be acceptable? Please let me know so I can begin on putting it back up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilastrul (talkcontribs) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oort cloud and asteroid[edit]

No, I'm not trying to. You should read the source and carefully look into what they are actually saying. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you've read the cited article, you'll know it's about asteroids and not rocky bodies. We've had this discussion before. Look at the Weissman & Levison article before assuming you know what it says. Funnily enough, these guys actually try to draw a distinction between rocky and icy bodies, though of course they repeated call them "asteroids" (and of course, there's possibly metallic non-rocky bodies and so on as well. If you want to fix the terminology problems in how we refer to minor planets, that's admirable, but through the IAU or MNRAS or something is the place to do it, not Wikipedia. WilyD 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
DO NOT RESPOND ON MY TALK PAGE, BUT HERE. I'll see your responses.
They do indeed make a distinction between rocky and icy bodies! And they repeatedly called them asteroids. Now, of course, the term "asteroid" is not precisely defined. This means that a) the term is somewhat vague, b) Wikipedia has to decide which definition to use. Wikipedia uses the definition "any minor planet up to the orbit of Jupiter, incl. its trojans" (no, I had nothing to do with that), which includes some rather icy bodies such as Ceres. Normally, and especially in an encyclopedia, it is better to use precise language. Because "asteroid" is vague, it is better to use a different term to be precise in what they exactly mean to say. Instead of "rocky bodies", we could alternatively say "bodies that formed in the inner Solar System". --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Your talk page isn't just for you to receive messages, it also serves as an archive of messages you've received so it's clear to all you've already been cautioned about your problematic behaviour (and help connect patterns of bad behaviour). As such, it's important that messages to you about how it's inappropriate for you to use Wikipedia to publish your own ideas belong here. Your own ideas about what minor planets should be called (or what Paul, Hal, or whoever might secretly) aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Instead, we need to stick to what sources say and mean - we can't say "bodies that formed in the inner solar system, because Weissman & Levison don't say or mean that. You might not like asteroid (nor, really, do I, though I recognise the practical difficulties in re-aligning all the literature terminology in a single fell swoop), but that's not for here. Try the IAU or MNRAS or whoever. WilyD 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I like to keep discussions in one place, so that they're actually a good archive and not fragmented. If you like to have a notice on my talk page (or even have the entire discussion copied there), that's fine with me. Either you're not actually reading what I'm saying, or you don't understand what I'm saying (or you don't want to?). In the former case, read it, carefully. Else you can ask questions or at least say that something isn't quite clear. In any case, don't assume my motivations (like you've been doing), because you're dead wrong about them. In fact, if you'd read what I've said, it shoud've been clear to you already that they are dead wrong. --JorisvS (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note about Book talk:War Book talk: Volume 1[edit]

This page is probably going to be recreated by Cyberbot I (run by Cyberpower678). Please see User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 23#Bug with Cyberbot I creating Book talk: pages for further information. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at fixing it again. It should work this time.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You can deleted the page now. The bug has been fixed.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

James Dello Russo[edit]

FYI, I just restored the CSD you removed from this article. The references you referred to were not for the subject of the article, but were for his father. If my actions are a concern, I can move to an AfD. Let me know, thanks. reddogsix (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

TUJF Deletion[edit]

Hello, you deleted the Toronto Undergraduate Jazz Festival recently I believe because of non-independent sources which could not be considered as appropriate references in regards to its importance. Before I create the article again I am requesting you review new sources I have gathered from the founder's previous work in establishing the Korean Undergraduate Jazz Festival.

Please get back to me, thanks.

Claytoncarmichael (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fletchers Solicitors[edit]

Thanks for the temporary undelete. I can't find the page. When I click on the link I am taken only to an empty page with a tag on the top. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am uncertain about what to do. I asked for the WP:Speedy deletion to be rescinded and for the article instead to go for discussion to WP:AFD so that I can get some idea from the WP:Community as to how it can be improved. The whole thrust of my discussion was to prevent deletion, and then to improve it. I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed because this is uncharted territory for me, even though I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Not having heard from you, I am making my points at the Speedy deletion appeal, which is probably what you would have told me to do anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I read your comments on my talk page. Thanks for responding. Regarding Fletchers, there is now a truncated version at User:BeenAroundAWhile/sandbox. What do you suggest I do with it? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding my correspondence with you, I will be paid by 90 Digital for all of my work on this article. If I write you about something else, it's my dime. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your RFD !votes[edit]

I want to preface this by saying that sometimes I think that foreign language redirects should be kept. I !voted to keep , for example (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_8#.E6.84.9B). I also don't have a problem with you !voting to keep foreign-language redirects, in general. I understand the argument and respect it. That being said, it isn't a good idea to say that "there isn't a reason given for deletion." By saying that, it is a personal attack against the nominator and a very weak argument that doesn't hold much merit. In fact, it is an argument for deletion and one that has been upheld on several occasions. Instead, you should be explaining why you think foreign-language redirects should be kept because is a much stronger argument and one that actually has some truth to it. Remember that these discussions are not a vote. I respect you and I apologize if I have been too strong with my previous replies to you. But please have some respect back though and show that you are participating in the discussion instead of dropping off copy-and-pasted nonsense every time someone nominates a redirect that you think should be kept. As an example, my keep rationale got Ivanvector to change his opinion on the subject. Tavix | Talk  15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I am watching this page and would like a response here. Tavix | Talk  15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with some of the reasoning. It's not a personal attack to note that no rationale for deletion has been given - it might reflect badly on someone that they're nominated a redirect for deletion without providing a reason, but that's an inference that people reading the discussion draw, not anything I'm saying (and it's not an evaluation of any particular editor(s), but of the discussion). The same problem applies to the rest of what you're suggesting - when someone doesn't provide a reason a redirect should be deleted, I can't engage in a discussion, nothing has been provided to discuss. So, it's not really an "argument" - and I don't think I've ever argued keep based on that, but always on some rationale related to usefulness and such, but it's a note as to why it's impossible to weigh the merits of the deletion argument. It's a tough situation, and yes, I get left kind of talking to myself, but when nobody's discussing the merits of the redirect, I'm the only person I can find to talk to, as it were. WilyD 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When you say that "nothing has been provided to discuss"—it's simply not true. These rationales hinge on WP:RFOREIGN, which is an essay that expands and supplements WP:RFD#D8: "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Someone who nominates redirects of these type don't think they are useful because they are novel or very obscure synomyms. I don't see how you think that there is nothing provided to discuss from that. There is a lot you could do with that to demonstrate that they are not obscure and/or are useful. For example, you could provide examples of its use. If you do that, it goes a long way to invalidate that rationale and the redirect will be much more likely to be kept. (btw: in this context, I used argue in its original sense: "to declare, show, prove, make clear") Tavix | Talk  16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm also confused by "I get left kind of talking to myself." In Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_3#Harijs_Poters, it doesn't look like you're talking to yourself. Three other people replied to your rationale and you haven't provided any responses. Tavix | Talk  16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that's factually wrong - people might quote RFOREIGN (or whatever), but there's no reason there. If I suggest "I can't respond to RFOREIGN because walking is a kind of cheese" you can't actually engage that - sure the grammar is correct, but there's no idea behind it that can be engaged - I mean, it's sort of technically true that one could have a Monty Python-esque "yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is" kind of argument, but you can't have a discussion who !vote delete per WP:WIKIGNOME or whatever - if there's no reasoning in it, you can't say anything. If no one else is willing to think about what they're writing, I can only engage myself. Sure, people write words in response, but I can't engage words, only ideas, in which there are none. WilyD 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
To address: "there's no reason there" in RFOREIGN... Yes there is. It's not "nonsense" like you suggest. It expands upon WP:RFD#D8 which states "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Does that make sense to you? Tavix| Talk  20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were true, it might make sense, but since it's not true, it doesn't make sense. Novel or very obscure search terms aren't likely to be used, so they're useless (almost tautologically) - common and/or proper terms are likely to be used, so they're useful. "Many people like the taste of the Moon, while many do not" is just nonsense, not an expansion of "Many people like the taste of blue cheese, while many do not". It would be a reasonable expansion if the Moon were made of blue cheese, but since it's unambiguously not, it just ends up being a bunch of gibberish. WilyD 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with something to understand it. I understand a lot of viewpoints that are not my own. Tavix| Talk  14:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Resonance Kota[edit]

You are right, I didn't go far enough back in the history. The version I deleted was riddled with spam and possible copyright violation. I've now restored to the version of 1 March 2015, which looks fairly clean. I've also watchlisted this, and I may semi if spamming from ISPs continues, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've indeffed User:ResonanceEdu as a spamuser name making highly promotional edits. I suspect that this is probably at least one of the spamming ISPs, but let's see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)