Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is neither myspace, a free web host, a vehicle for self-promotion, an advertising service nor a place to describe stuff you made up one day. If I deleted a page you created, ask yourself whether it was appropriate for a general encyclopedia. If you believe so, please read Why was my page deleted? to find out why the page was deleted and what you can do about it. If after doing that you still think I was wrong in deleting your page, feel free to leave me a message about it.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Contents
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Polk
Can you move the article to draftspace. I don't want it in my userspace, as there should be multiple editors. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please ask somebody else, I'm not familiar or comfortable with this "draft" thing. Sandstein 16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you are not familiar the process, perhaps you shouldn't be closing deletion debates, where 60% of the responses are to simply echo the nomination, and 40% of the responses are to move to draftspace. Please reopen the deletion discussion so that a person who is familiar with the process can close it. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. Sandstein 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused how you can both claim you aren't aware of the process that you are making judgements on, and that you are qualified to make such judgements. I assume you don't object if I take this to WP:REFUND. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead if you want. Sandstein 11:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused how you can both claim you aren't aware of the process that you are making judgements on, and that you are qualified to make such judgements. I assume you don't object if I take this to WP:REFUND. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. Sandstein 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Sandstein, moving to draft space is similar to userfying. In either case, the point of userfication or draftification is to provide a safe place outside of mainspace to work on an article. The difference is that draft space may encourage more public collaboration because the article isn't in someone's "private" user space. It's your call. If it's possible that the article can be improved, there's no harm in moving it to draft space (which I find slightly easier than userfying, actually, in that I don't have to remember the user's sub-page path). In the case of Ben Polk, non-notable footballers do tend to become notable after a time, so restoring to draft space for the purpose of establishing notability is reasonable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get the concept, I just don't like it. If we delete an article, this means we don't want it. No point then, in my view, in retaining it in a different namespace. If the topic does become notable later, recreate it as a stub with sufficient sources, then ask for undeletion of the old history. Sandstein 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, except in cases like this, where the player is signed to a full professional contract just before the start of the season, with every expectation that he will either make an appearance (for Portland), or be sent down to the fully-professional Portland Timbers 2 team. Quite frankly, I don't understand the desire to delete an article for a few days, that we all know will, unless some tragedy occurs, be quickly recreated - but that's another issue! Nfitz (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- (BTW, I was waiting before pressing the button on the move to draft, as Polk is MIA from the Timbers. He's likely training with Timbers2, and will play on Saturday, but with no information confirming he's been loaned out, I thought it prudent to wait). Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, see, that's American sports, just about the most uninteresting topic in existence to me. Meaning I am not in a position to understand anything you just wrote. Sandstein 06:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get the concept, I just don't like it. If we delete an article, this means we don't want it. No point then, in my view, in retaining it in a different namespace. If the topic does become notable later, recreate it as a stub with sufficient sources, then ask for undeletion of the old history. Sandstein 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you are not familiar the process, perhaps you shouldn't be closing deletion debates, where 60% of the responses are to simply echo the nomination, and 40% of the responses are to move to draftspace. Please reopen the deletion discussion so that a person who is familiar with the process can close it. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ben Polk made his professional debut yesterday, playing for Portland Timbers 2 in the United Soccer League listed in WP:FPL as fully professional, thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Can you restore the article? See [1] Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, again, I know nothing of US sports, please ask somebody else to evaluate this. Sandstein 21:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- What? That's just absurd. You clearly are unqualified then to be closing debates on the subject. Please avoid this area of editing in the future. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- And now thanks to your failure to deal with this properly, someone has recreated the article from scratch. Can you please restore the edit history. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, what I did is close an AfD, that takes no subject area knowledge, only evaluating consensus. Everything else I leave to those who care about the topic. Sandstein 05:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- And now thanks to your failure to deal with this properly, someone has recreated the article from scratch. Can you please restore the edit history. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Question
Re: this. Did you even look at the page I changed the redirect to? Valerian is a disambiguation page that includes both Valyria and Valyrian languages. I would think this is more appropriate. - theWOLFchild 09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree; "Valerian" and "Valyrian" are words that are pronounced and spelled differently, such that I don't see the point of redirecting from one to the other. If you disagree, I suggest you submit the matter to WP:RFD. Sandstein 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're miles apart. Forget it, it's not worth the hassle. - theWOLFchild 09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
What now?
Re this. "Not appropriate" according to who? There are other variations on the spelling there, why didn't you remove them as well? The purpose of a dab is to help differentiate. "Valerian" and "Valyrian" are extremely close words. People could easily search out one while really looking for the other. How does your deletionism help in any way here? - theWOLFchild 09:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per MOS:DAB: "Common misspellings should be listed only if there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling." I don't think that's the case here, as I haven't ever seen this misspelling. Sandstein 11:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a "misspelling", it is a very slightly different spelling of what is basically the same word, with a different meaning. (Just like the other words with slightly different spellings that you left there.) So not only is your revert inconsistent, it's seems it's also misguided. And, again, how is it helpful? - theWOLFchild 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- In that it omits irrelevant information. The two words have nothing to do with each other in terms of meaning and etymology. This means their only connection is a misspelling, which is not common, and so not relevant here. Sandstein 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to ignoring some glaring inconsistencies, but... ugh, again it's not worth the hassle. Nice job. - theWOLFchild 21:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- In that it omits irrelevant information. The two words have nothing to do with each other in terms of meaning and etymology. This means their only connection is a misspelling, which is not common, and so not relevant here. Sandstein 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a "misspelling", it is a very slightly different spelling of what is basically the same word, with a different meaning. (Just like the other words with slightly different spellings that you left there.) So not only is your revert inconsistent, it's seems it's also misguided. And, again, how is it helpful? - theWOLFchild 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikepedia: Articles for deletion/Blackmagic (rapper)
Hi there,
I'll be recreating the deleted page with additional reference points. Can i be assured it will go through a review and allowed if compliant with guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsmart (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. We are volunteers, nothing is assured here. Sandstein 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of south west india
Wikipedia asked to make a the following article which had been deleted by you. it was sourced/referenced, had many links. if wiki has coastal south west india, a article, why it needs to make this article. take the name from the list.--wiki tamil 100 06:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)
- Please link to the article or discussion at issue. Sandstein 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of "Bear vs. Bull"
The article Bear versus bull, which was deleted on March 26 following an AfD discussion, has been recreated (as "Bear versus bull (Reality)") by the creator of the original article, in a move which clearly violates the established consensus. Seeing that you closed the deletion discussion, I felt that you should be notified so that the correct course of action may be taken. Thanks! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)