User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 10

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

John Laurie Boulevard

Hi Premeditated Chaos,

I noticed that the article John Laurie Boulevard was deleted as it lacked notability as was considered a minor road. I'm thinking the article should be kept, as it is an arterial road, a western extension of McKnight Boulevard (an article that was kept), and somewhat notable because it's named after John Lee Laurie (where else could one easily find that out) and passes by Nose Hill Park? I was curious as to your thoughts? Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at Otr500's comment at the bottom of the AfD page, they outline a pretty solid set of criteria for the notability of streets. Being named after a famous dude and passing by a park are not reasons for being kept. Conceivably one could mention the street in the article about Mr. Laurie, if there was a source to support that, but that alone doesn't support a stand-alone article. If you have sources that indicate the street passes any of the other notability criteria, by all means we should have an article, but if not, then no, the article should absolutely not be kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: John Lee Laurie doesn't have its own article. My biggest concern is the John Laurie Boulevard is a major arterial road and functions as a continuation of McKnight Boulevard (which does have an article); however, I acknowledge that the notability argument is weak. As a compromise, could the article be integrated as a subsection of McKnight Boulevard coupled with a corresponding redirect page? JLB would still be mentioned, but not have its own page. A similar comparison is Alberta Highway 772 which includes Symons Valley Road and Beddington Trail. Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's no problem with sub-sections, the issue is just re-creating articles that were deleted by consensus without a major change in sourcing that would show passing of GNG or the criteria from the AfD (which is from the WikiProject). Do you have the article content or do you need it for integration? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the original content, is that something you could access? Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll email the raw wikicode to you via the "email this user" feature. And then feel free to turn John Laurie Boulevard into a redirect to the section as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, I have it now. One final quick question, is there any sort of endorsement, etc. that I would need to add the content to McKnight Boulevard so it doesn't get deleted (again)? In essence this is going to act as a merge. Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is never any guarantee that things won't be removed from an article. That's the nature of Wikipedia. I think your best bet would be to discuss it on the talk page first. Mention that you intend to merge some content from John Laurie Blvd as it is a feeder route to this other route, and see what people think over the next week or so. Provide a sample of what you would like to insert, making clear that it is sourced from the deleted content from John Laurie Blvd. Keep your proposed content relatively short (perhaps a paragraph, or two at most). If consensus is against the merge, accept that and move on. If consensus is to trim what is merged, accept that and move on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I am sorry for CSD log.I'm will be more careful — Adnan Enaya Afzal  talk 09:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a very nice person and I'm not posting those messages just for the sake of being mean. But you need to take more care, and you need to learn to interact with other editors when they post concerns at your talk page, not just me when I threaten to block you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Okay Adim, I will take care of the advance and try to negotiate.— Adnan Enaya Afzal  talk 07:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AtErik1/List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs

Hi, you have deleted my page: User:AtErik1/List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 1 of 2, while i was still working on it's improvement. Help me to get a copy of the last edit's/update's data. I need to move it into another wiki website. Thanks in advance. -- AtErik1 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I will email a copy of the source wikitext to you via the "email this editor" feature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for email, its now received. -- AtErik1 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

never say die record : page deleted

Hello, it is possible to retrieve the page "never say die record" or not? I asked if the director of this label was aware and here is his reply: "We think someone fiddled with it and messed it all up."

Maybe we can recreate the page differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.211.230 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the label was not "fiddled with" or messed up. Even if it had been, we don't typically delete pages because of vandalism, we remove it and carry on. In this case, we deleted the page after a deletion debate. Per that deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Say Die Records), we could not locate enough reliable, independent sources to indicate that the label shows encyclopedic notability. What that basically means, in layman's terms, is that we need to see that other people have published things about the label, like magazine articles, chapters in books, or similar, in order for us to maintain an article. The reasoning behind this criteria is explained in more detail at the notability policy I linked above, but basically, it prevents WP from becoming a totally indiscriminate collection of information that we can't verify.
Now, given that you seem to work for the label or at least be affiliated enough that you can speak with the director, it seems that you may have a conflict of interest in this area. You should be very cautious in editing areas where you have a COI, and you must, per policy, disclose your COI when editing. If you create an account, please be sure to disclose that, perhaps on your user page.
All that being said, if you can find reliable (track record of accuracy), independent (not affiliated with the label or its personnel) published sources that discuss the label in a reasonable degree of depth (ie not just a name-drop), I am happy to undelete the article. Please do not recreate it until then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insects in rock formations

Insects definitely belong in the rock formations they were discovered in. :) Abyssal (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of towns and villages in Tajikistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ismoil Somoni. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbab Chandio's deletion

I will see you later International Editor Shah (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC) International Editor Shah (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gray Routes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gray Routes. 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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for creating

Dear Premeditated Chaos, I ask you if I can create the english page referred to the italian painter Giovanni Ricciardi that you have deleted a couple of months ago. He is a well renowned artist, known for his cultural commitment worldwide, from France to Tokyo. thanks.Buntu (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that confirm this? Sources that Wikipedia accepts must be independent (not connected to the artist himself), reliable (known to fact-check, not a blog or a social media post), and in-depth (not simply a trivial mention in a discussion about something else). If you know of sources that meet these criteria (or that you think meet these criteria), please post them here and I will have a look at them. If they meet our policies I will undelete the article and insert the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page De Serpentis Munere

Dear Premeditated Chaos, in date 12 February 2017 you expired the page De Serpentis Munere because it appeared to be a promotional article for a non-notable film. I would like to understand why this film is non-notable: it is the last film just completed of Roberto Leoni, a writer and director with a lot of experience, well known for writing Santa Sangre by Alejandro Jodorowsky (twice in Cannes Film Festival: selection En Certain Regard 1989 and Cannes Classics 2009 - for the Empire one of The 500 Greatest Movies Of All Time). The World Market Premiere will be Saturday May 20th in Cannes Palais des Festivals and it is a shame that a Wikipedia page will not be ready for who will be interested in this film. If you have time you can check the informations regarding the film in its website www.deserpentismunere.com, in its IMDB page, in its FB page, in its ELLIPSIS page and in its FILMITALIA page. Please let me know if you think the page can be restored. Greetings from Italy Setlero (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per our criteria for notability of films, films that are not yet released should typically not have articles unless the production itself was somehow notable (for example, if there were unique circumstances like a death on set, or an unusually troubled production, etc). Do you have any reliable sources such as newspapers or magazine articles that confirm the production of the film is notable, in and of itself? Have there been articles talking about the film's significance as the last film of Mr. Leoni?
Moving away from the notability of the production, we judge the notability of the film itself. Again, the notability criteria for film says that if we are going to have an article about it, the film should have received significant coverage in reliable sources - newspapers, magazines, etc etc. For example, sometimes critical reviews are released before the film comes out, from pre-screenings for critics. We would accept those as reliable sources.
If you are aware of any reliable sources to show the film's notability, please post them here. Sources that Wikipedia accepts must be independent (not connected to the film's production team or company), reliable (known to fact-check, not a blog or a social media post), and in-depth (not simply a trivial mention in a discussion about something else).
The links you have provided are not acceptable as reliable sources: IMDB and Facebook are user-generated and not reliable, similarly the film's own website is not independent. Ellipsis appears to be the film's production company, so therefore it is not independent. The Film Italia link is borderline - it appears independent, but the website's intent is to promote Italian cinema, plus it's pretty bare-bones, so I would want a second opinion before I accepted it as a source.
Wikipedia is not concerned with having an article "ready" for the film's release date. We are not news, and there is no deadline. We will have an article when there are enough reliable sources to create one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your complete explanation and for the time you dedicated to my question. When there will be enough reliable sources to create an article I will let you know. Setlero (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) I will be happy to restore it and help you with citing sources once they're found. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henann Group of Resorts Article

Hi,

I'm trying to create this article about a resort company. I know you already deleted the initial submission of articles by Karl_henann. I am now writing this article using my own account and I am not in any way or form related to the company. Can you please allow me to upload my article? I have abided by the policies in writing an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hospicio (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create it as a draft and submit it to articles for creation. The commenters there will evaluate whether or not it is acceptable per our policies. Do not re-upload it into the mainspace without review, it will be deleted again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ImageVis3D original article text

The page for ImageVis3D was recently deleted due to meeting criteria G11 - Unambiguous promotion. The original article was clearly written by one of the original developers, but this does not mean that the content is inherently unfit for Wikipedia. ImageVis3D in particular is a piece of free biomedical imaging software that is used in many clinical research settings.

Here is a list of peer-reviewed publications by doctors and scientists who have used the software to support their research:

It is also noteworthy that the Center for Neuroimaging at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the second largest teaching affiliate hospital of Harvard Medical School, uses ImageVis3D in the development of their own medical imaging software. The field of free biomedical imaging software is quite niche and there are a few key players. I am preparing to rewrite the article to meet community standards and I would like access to the original article text. Thanks, Blueclaw (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will undelete and userfy it for you at User:Blueclaw/ImageVis3D :) Just comment out any non-free images so no one hisses at you about them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Samuel Bickerton Brindley

Harry Samuel Bickerton Brindley turns out to be notable because during WW2 he took over munitions factory in London and made it ultra-efficient. I found telegrams from Winston Churchill to Brindley. Then he started an institute for industrial efficiency studies. He died three days before he was knighted. I had no trouble finding sources, which mostly used his name without he KBE.104.163.158.183 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. If you can try to de-orphan it I'd appreciate it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try that instead of PROD? I already spent more than an hour on it :) 104.163.158.183 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review Robert J. Semrad

Hi, you tagged my page: Speedy deletion nomination of Robert J. Semrad. This is my first article post and am still unclear of the process, but I don't believe it should be deleted because I think it provides pertinent information about the subject; I think I just made some incorrect citations.

Can you provide any feedback to ask to how to improve the article? Also I'd like to try and submit the article again, should I contest the article then or try to create a new article? I'd really appreciate your help. Thank you! --Wikiuser 8691 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted under G11 because it appeared to be more concerned with promoting Mr. Semrad than with providing encyclopedic content. Specifically: the heavy use of external links to Mr. Semrad's website in the lead, the multiple citations to his personal sites, and the lack of citations to any other in-depth sources, all of which are frowned upon, strongly indicate promotional rather than encyclopedic intent. (Please see our external links policy and our reliable sources guideline for more information).
All subjects who have articles on Wikipedia must pass our general notability guidelines. Although the article did in fact provide information on Mr. Semrad, I do not believe (based on the sources included in the article) that Mr. Semrad is notable in the encyclopedic sense.
Please don't recreate the article in the mainspace. Instead, if you locate additional suitable sources (again, after reviewing our policies), please create it as a draft article and submit it to articles for creation for review. The volunteers there are experienced in assessing quality of sources and can tell you if your article is ready for mainspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi 5

I created a Wikipedia article for the Xiaomi Mi 5 and it was deleted for being unambiguous promotion. Can I retrieve the deleted material so that I can see why it was considered unambiguous promotion? Charlie pepin (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as G11 because it was an extremely short article about a product with no citations other than to its own official website / specs list. If you wish to write an article about the item, I suggest creating a draft and submitting to articles for creation, with citations to reliable sources like tech reviews. If the people at AFC approve the article let me know (or have them advise me) and I can un-protect the page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The i_hate_femininsm Instagram account wikipedia deletion

Dear Premeditated Chaos I was wondering what I could do to follow all the criteria needed for the article that I had written to stay up. I thought that I had made the page neutral, with many sources, and I also told a complete history of the account that can be backed up by facts. Obviously I had not done that and I would like the chance to revise the article so that it is not only credible, but also doesn't violate any of wikipedia's rules as well. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddogpwnsu (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations are all to Wikipedia and YouTube. Those are non-reliable sources. Have any reliable media sources written about this Instagram account? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get back on the wikipedia page to put in the proper sources and take out the not proper sources out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddogpwnsu (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, not without posting those sources here. Some cases are borderline enough that I will undelete and let people go on their way, but your article demonstrates no notability at all. If you have reliable sources about the account, post them here and I will review them. Also, please learn to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Resurrecting "Rape tree" article

Hi! I am planning to resurrect the "Rape tree" article. It is my understanding you deleted because the sources for the article weren't that strong. Below are the proposed sources. WSDavitt (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpADSHQZVYY

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/rape-trees-rosaries-and-english-only-why-the-supreme-court-wont-quell-the-immigration-debate/2012/04/25/gIQArUXPhT_blog.html

3) STATEMENT OF SHERIFF DEVER, COCHISE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BISBEE, ARIZONA before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS - MARCH 2, 2006

3a) Prepared Statement of Larry A. Dever "Smuggling routes are often marked with ``rape trees--women's under garments hung on tree limbs where a raped occurred, warning everyone of the consequences of failing to cooperate with the coyotes who prey on them. Running gun battles with fleeing felons occur much too frequently placing law enforcement officers and the public alike at great risk. Gang activity and its associated violence are on the rise as these groups become more competitive in the lucrative people smuggling trade. Just last week one of my deputies, the supervisor of the narcotics task force was the victim of a drive-by shooting at his home. Thankfully, no one was injured."

and

3b) "The people-smuggling culture is one marked by little if any value for human life. Smugglers are interested in one thing, and that's profit. They demonstrate very little regard, if any, for the human beings who are in their care. We've gone so far we're discovering along some of the people-smuggling trails occasion where there would be a tree or a bush or something that was decorated with women's underwear. And we'd just begin to ask, what does this mean? We discovered that those are rape trees. They're a monument and a signal to everybody along the line of what the consequences will be for failing to cooperate with the coyote."

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg26291/html/CHRG-109hhrg26291.htm

I took this to AfD since you went ahead and re-created the article without waiting on a response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zahava Burack

On 22 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zahava Burack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zahava Burack survived the Holocaust by hiding in a crawlspace beneath the home of a sympathetic Polish family for two and a half years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zahava Burack. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zahava Burack), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of BlackBerry Aurora

The page you deleted was being hijack. I don't know why he's doing it, but User:Onel5969 has hijacked two pages published by User:Firespin02. He does it by blanking the page, then putting in a redirect command. When I started fighting him using undo in the History tab, he turned to other actions. He caught me in the middle of an edit to the page, where I had accidentally saved instead of previewed. I had cached some copywrited material on the page intending to delete them when I was done. I know, a noobie mistake, but I fixed it. I deleted the material. But the speedy deletion went through anyway. Will you reconsider? Better yet, move it to [User:Fire02/BlackBerry Aurora]. I know, the page doesn't exist, but I think you have the priviledges to create it. Maybe he'll get the chance to finish it from there.

By the way, this is the url of the redirection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telkomsel  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 04:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being hijacked. It was being redirected because it isn't particularly notable in and of itself. Same with the other page. I admit Onel5969 (who I just pinged here) could have explained himself much better on the creator's talk page with regards to why he redirected, but I don't necessarily think he was wrong. He also wasn't wrong to tag the article for deletion as a copyvio, because at the time he tagged it, it 100% was, whether you did it by accident or not. I should have changed the CSD reason back to notability, but I don't think I was wrong to delete it.
I did a quick search and can't find many reliable sources to support the notability of the Aurora as a standalone article, although you and Firespin are certainly welcome to include information on the item in any appropriate articles, with references. If you do have enough reliable independent sources (not blogs or press releases, and I don't believe CrackBerry or GSM Arena qualify as RS per our standards), please create the article as a draft and submit it for review so that our helpers can confirm it is appropriate for mainspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, although I still have a problem with where he redirected to. As for redirecting, that is hijacking. We both know that there is a process for removing an article for not being notable. I found the BlackBerry article on [Short pages] and discovered it had a redirect command in it. Can you imagine how you would feel if you went to edit your page and discovered it had changed radically into a story about a foreign company. It took me a while to see the relevance: the telecomm company was based in Indonesia, the country that the new BlackBerry was being released in. An inexperienced user might not know that there was a useless page out there that used to be his, but should be deleted. By the way, I didn't know that lack of notability was a CSD. I think any time you see a CSD request from Onel5969, you should serious consider investigating it a bit. - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 06:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but you should discuss that with him. I don't see anything on his talk page to indicate you brought that concern to him. There certainly are avenues for deleting a page, but the deletion policy clearly lists redirecting as an acceptable alternative to deletion.
Doing some googling, it looks like the phone is distributed by a not-particularly-notable company (BB Merah Putih), which is a business partnership between two companies which are distributors or subsidiaries of Telkomsel (it's hard to tell which given I don't read Indonesian and am relying on Google translate). Those companies are similarly not particularly notable and don't have articles. So while it is a little far-removed, I can see why Onel5969 made the leap to redirecting the page there. Possibly List of BlackBerry products might have been a better target. I will restore the page to preserve the history, then redirect it there instead. Again, if you have sources to indicate independent notability of the Aurora, feel free to create a draft for review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you, so take this in the spirit intended: I had to go and read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To say the least, I am disappointed. I must have skimmed by the section on blanking and redirection. It hurt to see that because it gives power to trolls. Anyone that doesn't like the topic you posted can remove it, even if it passed the review process. Before you say it, I understand that you didn't write this policy, but you do seem to approve of it.
I did write in his talk page, but maybe you were asleep by then. I know I went to bed right after. He hasn't replied. I'm beginning to lose faith here. I think maybe I'll go back to lurking again.
As a postscript, Onel5969 seemed to be incredibly eager to bring the page down. Just saying...  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 15:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it seems like you're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. One15969 is a new page patroller, not a troll. His role is to look at brand-new pages and act as a sort of triage - is that thing notable? is it encyclopedic? does it need copyediting, wikification, de-orphaning? etc etc, then tag the page appropriately. Sometimes that means tagging things for deletion, sometimes for improvement.
The thing is, everyone here is human. We interpret policies differently, we make different leaps of logic, and yes, sometimes people even make mistakes. So where one person sees something that should be deleted, another sees something that should be redirected. Another may see the potential for a decent standalone article. Any one of those people might be wrong or right. That's why we discuss things on talk pages and noticeboards to see what the community consensus is. There is no grand conspiracy from this particular user or any other to get rid of the BlackBerry Aurora, there are just people fulfilling a role (new page patrol in his case, CSD deletion in mine).
Allowing pages to be merged or redirected does not give power to trolls, and I think you have a fundamental understanding of what we do here and how we do it if you really believe that. It gives us more options with that to do with a page instead of deleting it outright. Just because you do not agree with the results does not mean that the process is broken or full of trolls.
I'm sorry that you feel you are losing faith here. Try to understand though that someone disagreeing with you isn't a personal slight or grudge. It happens. This is a huge project and you are bound to encounter people that do things in a way that aggravates you. Sometimes it's best to just take a deep breath, chalk it up as a frustrating situation, and move on. There is always more to do elsewhere on the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you're a jerk. If I thought you were a jerk, I would hope you would just shrug it off. Just to be clear, I have no opinion of you: I don't know you.
Okay, back to business. I thought he reacted too quickly to the Blackberry page. A warning about the page maybe, or if he's so fond of deleting pages, WP:Proposed deletion might be better. We both know that CSD can happen in a matter of hours, and blanking the page then adding a redirect takes the matter out of the hands of the author. It's a CSD without a moderator. That's my only real complaint about the way this was handled: entirely too speedy and stealthily.
It doesn't matter now, though. Firespin02 isn't answering my posts on his talk page. I went to bat for him, probably picked up a reputation for being a bleeding heart, and he (or she) is gone. I'm done with it. You won't hear from me about this again. Honestly, if I could find the page again, I would recommend it for CSD myself. Thank you for being so patient.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cameron Norrie

I would have liked to contest the speedy deletion of the Cammeron Norrie.

To stating that the article concerned does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject - is rubbish. I would have thought it is quite clear that a tennis player who is ranked 6th in Britain and is in the top 250 in the world is obviously important and warrants a Wikipedia page and the article states these facts. The article is in the standard format for tennis players and lists all the tennis finals he has competed in, with links, which include all those he has won to gain the points in order to obtain his current ranking. There are links on his page to his pages in ATP and ITF as well as an external news service. If you want more external links, fine, put it back and I'll add more. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair I was hasty and missed the template at the bottom with the ranking, which is a credible claim, that's my bad. Frankly though he does seem to fail WP:NTENNIS from what I can see. I will restore the article and put it to WP:AFD (procedural only, with no prejudice on my part) for a full discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent log redaction

Please note that we don't redact logs simply to cover up our own mistakes. It appears that this is what you did here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, my intent wasn't to pretend I never fucked up but to show the user with a clean block log. It seemed unfair that he was left with an entry in what should be a clean block log just because I clicked the wrong tab. I can undo it, or would you prefer you did? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer you do it. As to the "clean block log", any user with an unblock entry would cause anyone looking at the block log to take a closer look before making judgement; your unblock reason, and the fact it has the same visible timestamp, makes it clear enough that the user's block should be ignored. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. I'll go fix it. Apologies for any concern or issues I may have caused, and I appreciate your patience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake memoirs and List of fake memoirs and journals

Good edit. The new list is nicely organized. Ecphora (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Robinson Bond

See his talk page. I agree the article requires better referencing, but it seems worthy of retention as a 'notable'. Shipsview (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair! For whatever reason I didn't see or find the references you mention on the talk page, which I agree do constitute enough to pass GNG. Particularly the death notice in the medical journal, since it indicates he was notable outside of just being good at being a soldier. Thanks for your hard work finding those :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Phonemetra

Hi Premeditated Chaos. The drafts you deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Phonemetra have just been recreated. Maybe the titles should be salted since this disruption is likely to continue even after this round are deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleted and salt has been liberally applied. Thanks for the heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for ckecking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

You have demonstrated you know what you're doing, and you've met me before, so I thought it best to ask you: I tried to cast a vote at Wiki-Hell to keep it. I read everything at the top of the page. I followed the format I saw the others using. I checked for warnings about being less than an admin. I did the editting thing and my addition should have been right there at the bottom of the page. Nothing. I even signed it with the four tildes. I checked the history and there was no entry. Any ideas what happened? I did get the little pop-up your edit was saved. Thanks for your time.  — Myk Streja Talk to me 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. :( I have no idea why I couldn't find it the first time through. I went to my watchlist, found a reference to the article, went there and... viola! I feel like an idiot. Thanks again for your time.  — Myk Streja Talk to me 05:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh no problem. For what it's worth I unfortunately have no idea what would cause that, lol. Sorry :( ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sandbox for Little Village Foundation

Hi DMC.

I'm a recognized expert in the field of blues music and signed up to post on Wikipedia after a friend who runs Little Village Foundation asked me to create an entry for his non-profit, which produces and promotes underexposed artists in many musical fields. As someone new to Wiki, I asked for and received editorial oversight on the help board. I received a prompt response, pointing out my errors.

I immediately contacted my friend for more useable reference links and planned a major overhaul of my effort. However, he was delayed in getting back to me because he was touring internationally as a profession musician while also attempting to finalize five CDs from new artists, and, simultaneously, I was out of state in the midst of a house hunt.

In short, I definitely want to fulfill my promise to my friend, and create a Wikipedia entry for him. Kindly give me the go-ahead. Thanks. Majicmarty (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, the initials are PMC not DMC. Second, Wikipedia requires in-depth reliable sources which are independent of the subject, to show that something passes our notability criteria. Basically, we want to know that other people cared enough to write about something before we do, for reasons of notability and also verifiability - we need to cite our facts to somewhere. Third, notability is not inherited from association with something else. So, the LVF may be run by a notable person, or produce records by notable people, but unless sources are writing specifically about the LVF, it is not inherently notable by association.
I had a look at the sources in your article so far, and they're frankly not good. The majority of them are from the LVF itself, so those are right out because they are not independent. Another batch are links to other artist personal websites - again, not independent of the subject if they are artists associated to it, so those are out in terms of showing notability.
Of what remains:
  • "2017 Keeping The Blues Alive award winners" - merely mentions the LVF.
  • "Midwest Record - Entertainment Reviews, News, and Views" - appears to be a blog with no information on who writes or publishes it. Merely mentions the LVF in a review of another record.
  • "John ‘Blues’ Boyd has a new album out, is set to play at SJ Jazz Fest – The Mercury News" - mentions the LVF in a profile about someone else.
  • "Village Undertaking: Aireene Espiritu Pays Tribute to Sugar Pie DeSanto" - artist being interviewed mentions the LVF briefly.
  • "Bollywood Blues: Channeling Memphis and Mumbai, Aki Kumar Crafts a Bi-Continental Sound" - in-depth profile of artist, brief mention of LVF.
  • "Delano mariachi group to play Carnegie Hall" - no mention of LVF at all.
  • "SONS OF THE SOUL REVIVERS | Waterfront Blues Festival" - merely mentions the LVF.
Basically, there's just not enough coverage in the sources you have given to show that the LVF passes our criteria for notability. If you have any additional sources (along the lines of say, a profile of the foundation itself in a magazine or a newspaper), please feel free to post them here for review, but right now the sourcing just isn't there. On top of that, I'm sure you're passionate about the topic, but the draft comes off as more like a friendly profile of the company than an encyclopedia article. The language is very casual and upbeat, and would almost certainly need an extensive rewrite to be suitable for article space. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it takes two seconds to close each MfD discussion?

So it takes two seconds to close each MfD discussion? As per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SamanthaRubianes/Rocky_Loves_Emily ? Did you look at the article at all? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I saw exactly what Calton and Legacypac saw - a userspace draft for a non-notable band, created in 2011, edited twice, then abandoned by its creator. There is no hope for notability, therefore the content is not encyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It took me longer to type this post than to determine that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fellow deorphaner

Hi PMC again.

Your tip in User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 9#Fellow deorphaner re AWB was a good one. Thanks. Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry for the late reply! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Dee

Hi, You state "An interview is not a WP:RS, and WP:PORNBIO has not been met" however interviews are seen as reliable sources and PORNBIO doesn't need to be met - It helps but it's not a must so atleast from where I'm sitting not only is the deletion wrong but IMHO the AFD was closed toosoon aswell, If after a third relist editors thought the same way then fine but I'd rather editors judge the sources provided and not just dismiss them as "unimpressive", Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 07:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists is considered unusual and occasionally excessive. I don't believe there was any need for a third relist, and I am comfortable with my close. I have no objection to you bringing it to deletion review for other opinions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and to a point I hate the constant relists, To be honest I think it's 50/50 - Although IMHO notability is somewhat there I did essentially scrape the barrel so starting a DRV would probably be a waste of time, Ah well thanks anyway, thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Draft:Midwives article into article Midwife

Hi. I just wanted to raise some concerns about how you recently advised on a merger of the two articles mentioned above. I am mentoring new Wikipedians under a formal mentoring programme and one of them was the author of the offending draft article. You advised User IM3847 to merge if he wanted to merge (See your advice at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Midwives) without considering the content of the draft relative to the existing article and apparently simply on the basis of a near duplication of titles. This effectively led to deletion of the draft article without integration of content or properly considering whether or not the draft brought additional information into the system. The draft article did indeed contain much information that was new and the problem with it was how it was named and not that it was a duplicate. As far as I can make out, there was also no interaction with the author of the draft article before proceeding with the merger/deletion which happened very quickly. The content of the draft article related mainly to Midwives in South Africa and the author should have been advised either to add this information to a new South Africa section in the existing article or to create an article on South African Midwives as per precedent in the article Midwives in the United States which is linked to the article Midwife. I must also point out that in advising to effectively delete the article you also acted contrary to the guidelines for dealing with draft articles, which do not cite duplication of title (or information) as grounds for what was a 'Speedy Deletion'. In conclusion, please be more careful when you again provided advice on merging of draft articles. It is more than just a technical matter and content is surely the major consideration. The purpose of using the draft facility is after all in large part to get opinions and advice, and what has happened is potentially discouraging for a very new Wikipedian who has worked hard on content and simply slipped up in terms of the way the draft article was named. Hope these comments are taken in constructive spirit in which they are intended. I have managed to recover the deleted information and the article will go up in the proper way. Thanks. Waitabout 09:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. I fucked that up. I went and left an apology on the author's page, hopefully they see it and don't hate me too badly. FWIW I wasn't trying to delete the page though, and nothing was ever actually deleted, just redirected which can always be reverted by anyone. I thiiiiink the draft got copy-pasted into mainspace instead of pagemoved though so I'm going to do a quick history merge so the user's contributions and history are fully attributed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we all screw up sometimes. I have done my fair share of it. I am sure the author will appreciate your note to her and will not take it personally. Waitabout 10:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:CSD Quicklinks

Hi, you recently closed this MfD as delete. However, that template was actually in use (and serving a useful role) on the relatively high-visibility essay Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters. The inclusion of the template in that essay has recently been the subject of a somewhat mystifying edit war, as you can see in the essay's history and talk page. This MfD was clearly an attempt to carry on that edit war through other means after a clear consensus to keep the template formed on the talk page, as the template was again removed shortly after the deletion with edit summary gloating about the deletion.

Anyways, there's no way you could have known this as you reviewed the MfD, but with this context, can you undo the deletion? I considered a DRV but figured this would be a better use of everyone's time since the decision should be pretty clear. A2soup (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it. What a bizarre thing to get into an edit war about. Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! A2soup (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:United_States_dictionary_transcription deletion review

The US dictionary template was non-admin deleted after discussion by only 4 editors even though it fills an important niche since hundreds of millions of English-speakers have grown up with it. I suspect those editors involved may have little anglospheric experience outside the United Kingdom.

I teach English and have worked in dozens of primary and secondary schools in Australia and in dozens of elementary, middle, and high schools in the USA; I have even taught in cued speech. None of these schools taught English pronunciation with the IPA; they all used the short vowels ă, ĕ, ĭ, ŏ, ŭ, o͝o, and ə for æ, ɛ, ɪ, ɒ, ʌ, ʊ, and ə; the long vowels ā, ē, ī, ō, and o͞o for eɪ, iː, aɪ, oʊ, and uː; the digraphs ah, ar, aw, er, ow, and oy, for ɑː, ɑːɹ, ɔː, əɹ, aʊ, and ɔɪ; and the digraphs ch, dh, kh, sh, th, wh, zh, and ng for tʃ, ð, x, ʃ, θ, hw, ʒ, and ŋ. The relationship between short vowels and long vowels is crucial to teaching emerging phonics and this is done naturally with the breve ◌̆ for short vowels and the macron ◌̄ for long vowels. The only new character a student must learn is the schwa ə. This breve and macron system is employed in museums, zoos, dictionaries, and teaching aids across Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.

Could you please reconsider the deletion? Thecurran (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, non-admins can't delete things. Only admins (like myself) can. I think you meant to say that a non-admin nominated the page, but that's neither unusual nor prohibited, so it's not a good argument for undeletion. Neither is low participation. It's unfortunate, but MfD is like that. It's a dusty corner of Wikipedia. We can't force people to drop in, so we have to accept what we get.
Moving on. The page in question was a pronunciation respelling guide apparently invented on Wikipedia and hosted in the Wikipedia namespace, not mainspace. That means it was not an article, but was intended to be useful to editors in editing Wikipedia. It was determined over the course of several discussions, including the TfD and the above-linked MfD, that the page and the template that linked to it were not useful per the Manual of Style and were therefore deleted by consensus. I see no reason to overturn consensus in this instance. You may wish to post at Deletion Review if you want a neutral third opinion reviewing my deletion and that in the TfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The breve & macron system is alive and well in several national institutions in disparate global regions; it wasn't invented on WP but {{Respell}} appears to be a wikiism with little basis in education or in reality. I'm confused though; it says right on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_14#Template:USdict that "The result of the discussion was deleteundefined (non-admin closure)". Thecurran (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in response, I've been busy elsewhere. Discussions at Templates for Discussion are often closed by non-admins because of low participation from admins. But, the actual deletion will always be performed by an admin after the closer tags the page for deletion.
I think ultimately the consensus of the two discussions was that conflating phonetic re-spelling and IPA characters was un-intuitive and confusing for readers who are typically used to one or the other. Additionally, the template and the related wikispace page were very rarely used, which supported that premise. If you believe my close was incorrect, by all means post at deletion review to have other eyes look at it, but at this point it would be against consensus for me to undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reactivate deleted page: 124 Street, Edmonton

Hi, thanks for all of your hard work in making Wikipedia even better! There seems to have been an error though, and I need your help, please!

  • I'm getting in touch about a recent deletion by you (Premeditated Chaos), included in this deletion group
  • It's "124 Street, Edmonton" 124 Street, Edmonton" Here's a link to an overview of the street http://www.124street.ca/
  • As far as I can tell, the grouped deletions are for streets deemed irrelevant in bulk. Granted, the former Wiki page indeed needed a lot of work, but it is indeed a street of note. The sooner we can re-activate it, the sooner we can make it better! (What I was prepping to do, when I noticed it was deleted.)

Hope this isn't too much info, but to confirm that it is a street of note and give you a bit of background for the request, here are a few related areas where it should be linked to an article:

Listed under the Edmonton, AB, Canada page (our city)

  • Neighbourhoods: "established 12 business revitalization zones – 124 Street and Area, Alberta Avenue, Beverly, Downtown, Chinatown and Little Italy, Fort Road and Area, Inglewood, Kingsway, North Edge, Northwest Industrial, Old Strathcona and Stony Plain Road.[97]"
  • Retail: "Near Oliver, 124 Street is home to a significant number of retail stores."
  • Museums and galleries: "Independent galleries can be found throughout the city, especially along the 124 Street/Jasper Avenue corridor, known as the "gallery walk".[204]"

Already mentioned by the following residential neighbourhoods (as in it's a draw for residential real estate sales in the area):

  • westmount "124 Street, a major shopping destination, runs North-South through the east side of Westmount, and includes a number of mixed-use developments, condominiums and apartments", "There are several shopping areas in the neighbourhood, including art/retail/commercial districts along 124 Street, and two small upscale shopping centres on 102 Avenue."
  • oliver "Along the west edge of the neighbourhood, shops and businesses line 124 Street. Just to the west of Oliver, in the neighbourhood of Westmount, are the shops and services located in another strip shopping centre called High Street"

intersects with these neighbourhoods (though isn't linked):

  • north glenora
  • glenora
  • queen mary

Listed under List of attractions and landmarks in Edmonton: "124 Street Area"

There are several festivals/events on the street, including (but not limited to)

All is Bright (Wiki article needed, here's an outside link http://exploreedmonton.com/festivals-and-events/all-is-bright-festival)

It's also a historic street.

Here are more links that are now pointing to a dead page: Pages that link to "124 Street, Edmonton"

Thanks in advance, and I hope I'm directing this to the right person! (I also posted this on the deleted pages, but I'm a new user.... and I confess I'm a bit confused about where it's best to direct this feedback).

LadyStardust1981 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC) LadyStardust1981 LadyStardust1981 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every article at Wikipedia should pass our notability criteria. Most often, we use the general notability guideline (GNG) to judge notability. Please read it before you read the rest of my commentary because it hinges on it. The guideline I cited in the AfD, WP:ROADOUTCOMES, provides a pretty clear explanation of the expectations most editors have when judging articles about city roads. To quote: "Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway have varied outcomes. An article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics." In other words, saying the road has lots of real-estate interest and nice retail shopping is not enough. You need to have reliable, third-party, in-depth sources that show why this road in specific is any more important than the next road down the block.
Of what you gave me, not much is of any use in proving encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (for obvious reasons), so something being mentioned on WP in another article does not demonstrate notability. The existence of festivals on the street also does not demonstrate notability unless the street is somehow inherently tied to the festival - if there were a 124th St History Festival or something maybe, that would show historical and cultural notability. Plenty of streets have festivals, but we write about the festivals, and not so much about the streets.
The article might stand on historicity, but your sources are not good for proving it. The first link for connect2edmonton is an internet forum, which is not a reliable source. The second source looks very nice but on inspection, the publisher is listed as the 124 Street and Area Business Association, which tells us it is not an independent source. It is produced by people linked to the street via their business association, which makes the source unreliable for the purpose of showing notability.
So basically, as it stands, no, I will not be undeleting the page. If you have any better sources (read our guidelines, then read them again), please advise me here or the lovely people at our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, who can help you with assessing what is a reliable source for our purposes.
As an aside, I notice you mention "we can make it better" and "our city". Are you a member of the 124 Street and Area Business Association or a representative of them? If so, you have a conflict of interest and you need to declare that. If not, why use plural pronouns? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Are you active right now? Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, I'm at work and busy so I can't get up to anything complex. What do you need? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry to bother you. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I do frequently edit when there's nothing up at work but it's a bit of a busy one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Furies Erinyes - undeletion request

Good morning, hello.

Yesterday, early morning, my draft article page was deleted. The deletion discussion was focused on the motive, of moving the article page to a different namespace or alternatively to a sister project. The draft page is a work in progress; I have yet to finish collecting information content for the article. The structure and visual appearance of the type options have, also yet, to be processed for completion. However, I believe that the article's size will not grow too much longer. Developments and improvements of the article page are taking place and are in action, still, at this point in time. The page is at a completion stage that is prior to a re-insertion request to the mainspace. I feel happy to follow administration requests as they are given. I had not expected to find that the article page had been deleted, without further directional advice. Nevertheless, with the page now having been deleted, I would like to have the opportunity to see the work in progress through to a stage of completion. I am, therefore, requesting for the article page Draft:Furies Erinyes to be undeleted. I would like the article page to follow closely the policies of Wikipedia, so that it will become a recognisable featured article page in the mainspace. I intend to develop and improve the page to a stage of completion that satisfies all of the policy requirements of administration. To do this, however, there has to be a page, with raw information to work with. Before completion, the page will inevitably be at a point of continual development and improvement. I do expect the administration process to be ongoing, as work progresses, until its very final submission. In Consequence, I will follow the options given, for rejected articles - as I have done so, in the past - when they are nominated by the administrator's interventions in the future. Finally, I request the undeletion, as is deemed necessary, of the deleted article page Draft:Furies Erinyes with the introduction of a new title "Furies:Erinyes (Eumenides)".
I look forward to completing the article page, in the future, through to the submission stage. Similarly, I look forward to hearing from you about my request for undeletion. FUSTER1965 (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No. I'm sorry. You seem like a very nice person who is working very hard on this, but it is original research. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. We do not publish original work. We present information that other people have researched and published, but we do not ourselves research and publish new information. You've written a beautiful scholarly monograph, and it's very unique, but Wikipedia is not a good home for it. We have determined in three different discussions that it is simply not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Please, please work on it elsewhere. There is essentially zero chance that it will ever appear in the main encyclopedia space, no matter how much you work on it.
Please do not take this as a threat, but if you continue to persist in re-adding your monograph here, you will very likely be blocked for being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. No one wants that. You seem like a driven and intelligent person, and we would far rather have you as a contributor than not, but you need to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please understand that. If you have lost any work as a result of the deletion, I am happy to email you a copy of the content, but I will delete it on sight if it shows back up on the Wikipedia again in any namespace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


you deleted my work

you deleted my work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Wikilogin123/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2012#User:Wikilogin123.2FComparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates.2C_2012

can i at least have a copy for myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been emailed to you via the email this user feature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regene Lim deletion request

Hi, thank you for closing my deletion request with regards to Damien Teo. I came to notice that I have forgotten to include another child actor, Regene Lim, in the deletion request. Now that the deletion discussion has been closed, may I know if you would be able to proceed to delete the page without having me to raise another request, because the reasons would be the same and it seems like a hassle to duplicate another deletion request. DerricktanJCW (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could try PROD, citing the AfD in your PROD reasoning. If that gets removed though, you'll have to do another AfD (mentioning, of course, the other one). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man I didn't see that this had been deleted at AfD and restored. It's not eligible for PROD in that case, it has to be taken to AfD. I'm going to remove the PROD tag and leave the AfD up to you since I don't know anything about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Thank you for giving your two cents with regards to the AfD that I have raised earlier for Damien Teo, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Teo. I have also nominated multiple related pages in the AfD for deletion but I have accidentally missed out one individual who also failed WP:GNG. I have raised a new AfD for this individual, Regene Lim, and it would be appreciated if you would proceed to the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regene Lim (2nd nomination) to voice your opinion with regards to this proposed deletion. It should be a non controversial one as Lim is also an non-notable child actress in Singapore, similar to the other child actors whose pages were deleted in the earlier AfD. Thank you. DerricktanJCW (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

I saw you unclosed this even though it had be relisted twice? Why? [1] Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause I didn't notice that Ad Orientem had relisted it about 20 minutes before I had closed it and I felt it would be a bit uncouth to override him. I did the same thing here too - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database of Recorded American Music (2nd nomination). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Hopefully we don't need to wait another full week. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P sure that's what's gonna happen since it got relisted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the page I created :(

The page of Dr. Simon Ourian was deleted and I'm not sure why. Dr. Simon Ourian is a Jewish-Persian Doctor specializing in Dermatology, and received much publicity online from different newspapers & channels. Why was his page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micky3185 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone or everything that has an article on Wikipedia needs to be notable per our criteria. Usually we use the general notability guideline (GNG) to determine what makes the cut. The GNG tells us that a topic needs multiple sources that meet our standards of reliability and independence in order to pass (broadly speaking). An editor felt that the references on the article you created were not sufficient for our standards, and placed a proposed deletion tag on the article. That tag expired after no one removed it for seven days, and the article became eligible for deletion. I agreed with the proposer's rationale, so I deleted the page.
Basically, the references are mostly either gossip magazines (not reliable), interviews (not independent), or negative press (biography of living persons policy issues), so they don't suffice to show notability per our policies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TPConnects

Am I supposed to do anything more on this as I am quite new Can I recreate this page Raju Dubai (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to recreate, the result of the deletion discussion was keep and so the page has been left as it was when you asked for undeletion in the first place. Carry on editing and working on it, but please be sure not to leave it alone for another six months or it risks being deleted again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

Hi, Could you please restore User talk:Bgc7676 as as per WP:DELTALK talkpages are never deleted under any circumstances, Not sure if you did it intentionally or whether the script done it but you need to restore it asap, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone to AN and had it restored - usually i;d wait but I knew if that editor came on before you and recreated their talkpage then it would've created some chaos so wanted to get it resolved asap, Could i ask infuture you be more careful when deleting MFDs, Anyway we all make mistakes so it's all cool :),
Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 01:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Did something go awry in blocking this user? [2] I see nothing in his log.--John Cline (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it, I got a little distracted rolling back his edits. Too many tabs open, lol ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

significance of Dj Jubilee

Hiya! I saw that you removed Dj Jubilee (Ny based DJ)'s page, and I was sorry to see that because she is a pretty significant figure within DJ culture and underground dance music within the US (especially NY and Miami) and the UK. As well, women in DJ culture and dance music are often under-recognized, that is, contributions are forgotten, their names are left out of lists while their male colleagues and collaborators get credit, and it becomes a kind of vicious circle where women get left out of the cultural record when actually they were there and contributing significantly all along. There are definitely scads of articles about her work and impact in relevant music publications from Spin, Billboard and Mixmag, to The Fader and Red Bull Music I'm sorry I can't find the discussion on the removed page, but is there more info I can provide that would be of help in changing this decision? Thanks! Djripley (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the deleted page so I can't comment on it. As the header says, link to the page in question. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

162.251.83.104

162.251.83.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) TPA needs to be revoked. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 11:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't on at the time. Signed off just after blocking him so didn't get this message. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos/Archive_10"