|
User talk:Missvain/Archive 54
Deletion of 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus AttackHello Missvain, may I ask why or on what reasoning you deleted the article "2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack"? Because I was under the assumption an admin would properly assess the validity of the votes and not base their decision off the actual number of votes. For example Wikipedia:Notability (events) states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"." For the 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack, it was not just a simple case of a "molotovs being thrown at a bus", which may I note that user SmartyPants22 pretty much hit and ran with that argument. The comments seem to be pretty much ignorance and personal opinions more than actual valid arguments, this should have been clarification not to delete based off this. You also extended it twice, but got no further comments, I think the lack of valid arguments should have warranted not to be deleted, rather than being deleted. One argument was "Insignificant event. It didn't get in-depth coverage and it's not notable per" this is factually untrue, in Turkey there has been rallies and the topic brought to the Turkish parliament, the fact that the Turkish secret police is involved makes it interesting and also unusual like I mentioned above. So that very statement is grossly false and was misleading to say. As per the recommendations "bad faith" comments should have been ignored. The arguments were not valid grounds and being out gunned should not be a valid reason to get something deleted. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads" Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus & also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_notable/Just_not_notable The users SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 grounds for deletion is supposedly notability which as per the reference above is not a valid reason to just simply delete the article, (if that was even their supposed reasoning).. So I really think you should reassess this please. TataofTata (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Hungarian Testing BoardAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Hungarian Testing Board. 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. Sldn37 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC) The article about Gramps has not been deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramps. I just want to say that I found this whole process very discouraging. This proposal to delete seems unnecessary and vindictive, and the subsequent renaming and redirecting seem intended to obscure the article. As noted in a Reddit post, it appears that Wikipedia is focused more on American celebrities, than on sober topics like genealogy. The Gramps (disambiguation) page seems to illustrate this attitude. And it is frustrating that users seeking to delete the Gramps article don't consider published academic papers as evidence of notability. But I am really offended that I was accused of sockpuppet posts in the AfD, when that is absolutely not the case. I don't know where to express my disappointment on this process, hence this post here as you appear to be managing the AfD process (and I'm not blaming you). Sorry for the rant, maybe I just need a break from Wikipedia. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ramzi NajjarHi. Can you please relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramzi Najjar. I want to dig more as there is a lot of coverage in Arabic-language media. Thanks. Störm (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
It took a while, but I have decided to attempt to implement a merge of this article, and I see that you very recently archived the existing discussion. I have a couple of technical questions I would like to ask about merging/redirecting. Should I do so here? Or, would it be better to bring back the existing discussion from the archive, so that I can ask my questions there? Sorry for my slow move to this stage. CWBoast (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetCode (2nd nomination)I have a question about your close as delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetCode (2nd nomination) There were references on the article that seem to support notability IE: "The rest are fine for me. Forbes, NBC... Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)" I also looked at those references at Forbes and NBC and found that it looks to meet WP:GNG The claim "No one has provided a single keep vote based on actual sources - nor have they provided sources or relevant policy that allows us to ignore WP:V. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)" is completely without merit. If the article was originally spam and/or created by a sockpuppet, have no bearing on the notability of the subject. Can you explain your rational for delete? Jeepday (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Draft:South Ossetia–United States relationsAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations. 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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Please re-evaluate your closehere. That is not a keep, though your close is a supervote. I analyzed the sources and provided adequate reasoning why they are not sufficient so at best it's no consensus but I encourage you to check out User:Praxidicae/fntest which lists a slew of blackhat SEO sources, which these are. In fact that ones that aren't BHSEO are deprecated and listed as unreliable per WP:RSP and as we know interviews that have no editorial control also don't count, which is largely wahts linked. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC) BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk about getting beaten up ....@Missvain. I merely observe that I suggested you give more comments when closing discussions. Since doing so you seem to be subject to hassle and I would like to apologize for that hassle that may have resulted. That about a no-win. Perhaps it will all settle in a few days. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) AfDWith respect to [1], perhaps a good case for closing as "no consensus" instead? --JBL (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am just curious and want to learn more. I thought this is going to be relisted for more views but keep was unexpected. This page has zero independent, indepth sources, not considering awards. I am trying to think from your angle this is keep because the Afgan Girls page doesn't exist so sources can be used for Somaya Faruqi. Am I right?Sonofstar (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we talk?i need to ask you something ...Hi im Deborah but you can call me Debbie,I want to create an article can you help me please... Deborah Jenkins (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Sunanda GandhiI agree with your decision at AfD, and thanks for the effort you spent to get good consensus. But I want to check that article's references to her shared work with Arun Manilal Gandhi. For example, they won a peace award together, but until I changed it, his article described him as winning it alone. Would you please let me check those now-vanished references for missed overlap? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you noteHi, Missvain. I just thanked you for this old edit, but I just wanted to drop a line as to why. I had never known about the {{Search for}} template, and it looks like a very useful tool. It definitely provides more capability than the standard {{Find sources}} Google links you typically see in AfD/Notability tag links, etc. I'll definitely try using it to find references on possibly more obscure topics. Thanks! 2pou (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Re your AfD close: "Please improve the article" is a bit vague - we're always ready to improve all articles. What did you have in mind here, given how many improvements have been made to the article during the AfD? :PamD 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your closure. I confess to now having grave misgivings about my part in helping to have this article retained as part of Wikipedia's vast and influential collection of academic biographies. Had I known there would be universal support here for the idea that it is better for Wikipedia to put children in danger, than ever accept that in this case, their naked prejudice against the tabloid press might be in error, I probably would not have done what I did, and let other people continue in their obviously mistaken belief that in Wikipedia terms, this man was a nobody. He wasn't a nobody, he was a somebody, he is just unfortunately a somebody who got convicted of a serious crime, that for whatever reason, the mainstream media sources that previously chose to profile him, did not consider the end of his career to be remotely newsworthy (pertinent to which is that they never actually wrote about him as News, only ever as Lifestyle/Culture). It is pertinent that Wikipedia is neither News, nor is is it Lifestyle/Culture, nor is it an autobiographer, or even the PR department of the Observatory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, beholden in this case, to doing what a neutral biographer would do, which is to obviously include this highly pertinent information, on the basis there's no good reason to believe it could be false. Not even a 25% chance, as someone has suggested is their bar. Which is not to suggest in any way that Kukula himself actually wants this information hidden. Other than the 12 year delay between his crime and his conviction, we have no reason to believe he would be party to this attempted deception. Would you therefore be open to reconsidering your decision, on the basis that had I (and perhaps others) known that there would be absolutely no prospect of this biography being updated to reflect what is so obviously true, we would have said that deleting it was the next preferable option. There is, as I hope you can see, a non-trivial risk of this man being able to use this false biography to continue to offend, given that it currently portrays him as a man who is not a danger to children and has a cool sounding job. He could, for example, direct a child he meets online, to read it, and thus persuade them he is someone they should want to interact with. We already know from reliable sources, that engagement with children was one of his most cherished parts of his job. I am not trying to smear the man here, I am not suggesting these are likely outcomes, but I am mindful that when it comes to child safety, you have to take the approach that even a low risk, is a serious matter. Is highly relevant information given his career, that in 2018 he was convicted of a serious crime pertinent to child safety, a crime he actually committed before he was appointed Public Astronomer. Thus Wikipedia definitely needs to put aside its prejudices against tabloids and allow the readers to at least know why it might be that they can no longer find this man's employee profile on the Observatory website, can no longer see him being referred to in reliable sources as the Public Astronomer of the Royal Observatory, or indeed find him being quoted anywhere as an astronomy expert. If Wikipedia can't do that, for whatever dubious sounding reason they choose to apply, then it has a moral duty not to compete with with the sources that have taken the view that having prominent access to this information is in the public interest. I am actually pretty shocked to see Wikipedia editors genuinely seeming to feel no shame in allowing Wikipedia to be a party to lying by omission, over a matter as serious as this, especially when the counter case, preventing harm to Mukula, is clearly nil. If literally anyone in the subsequent debates after your decision had been able to give a specific reason why these reports might be false, other than the entirely unconvincing argument that they are tabloids, I might have reconsidered. But all I have been given by way of justification, is complete and total nonsense. The latest example is that the presence of Page Three content is somehow relevant to whether or not a report of this nature, in this context, could be false. Or that the fact the false Amanda Knox story was online for two minutes, an admitted mistake, caused by a misunderstanding that misled several newspapers, including presumably some that Wikipedia considers reliable, is somehow pertinent. This sort of utter utter garbage is offensive, reprehensible even, if it is being honestly presented as logical argument. Doubly so given I am the one being told it is I who is being disruptive for pushing back against it. It has been nothing short of utterly ridiculous, witnessing what morally vacuous judgements and emotional viewpoints underpin people's sheer unwillingness to engage here on the actual facts of the matter. The context and circumstances, as the Wikipedia polices on Verification and Reliable Sources actually require to be considered. And deliberately so, in my view, such is the apparent prejudice here against these newspapers. This definitely seems like a situation that could very much bring Wikipedia into disrepute, if you can't see your way to a reconsideration. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWHQGreetings. Question, you closed this as keep, and while the !votes do show that preponderance, all the keep !votes are based on WP:BCAST, which is part of WP:NMEDIA, and never address GNG. WP:SNG says "Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions" Can I ask your thoughts? The reason I'm curious is that other recent SNG's (e.g. NFOOTY, NCRIC) have recently started to be re-evaluated and to no longer trump GNG. Thoughts? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: May 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
UY SCUTI Olamide AlbumHi — as the closer of the AfD on UY SCUTI Olamide Album (under its old, slightly different name), I thought you might want to know that the article has just been moved from drafts back into mainspace. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/39th Young Artist AwardsHi, am considering a deletion review of this close. Can you please explain how WP:Indiscriminate as it is written relates to acting awards which are simple statistics that need no explanation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC) AfD RelistsHi Missvain. I've been closing some AfDs today and, for whatever reason, I noticed that many of the AfDs I was closing had been relisted by you. In some cases, it seemed like the AfD discussion already had strong consensus when you relisted it (like this one or this one), or at least had substantial discussion from multiple editors at the time you relisted it (like this one or this one). My understanding of WP:RELIST is that is intended only for AfDs that have insufficient participation or insufficient policy-based arguments; and that if "there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." I don't think that these relists are particularly harmful (but I also don't think they're particularly helpful either), and I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to close AfDs, but I thought I'd drop you a message and let you know that I found it somewhat strange, and perhaps suggest that you take another read through WP:RELIST to ensure that you're applying that part of deletion policy appropriately. Thanks for your help with closing AfDs. Cheers! —ScottyWong— 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Your draft article, Draft:Scott Ivie Hello, Missvain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scott Ivie". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to let you knowHey, I moved back from draft to mainspace an article Max Polyakov who you aproved via AfC in May. Some suspicious (possible SPA account) moved it to draft with lame explanation. To be franks, it's the first time I see such an action. So, I decided to let you know --Asketbouncer (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC) July 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging DYK nomination of Quesabirria
Marcia PallyMissvain, You may wish to look at current discussion and editing war in regard to Pally's German Wikipedia entry. It may shed some light on the decision to delete her Englisch Wikipedia page -- particularly the comments and attempts to edit by Aaabbbyyyzzz who instigated the deletion on the English Page. I think respectfully that it may cast light on the deletion decision and cause reason to reconsider.Dreifoos (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC) SecretlabHi, notice that you were the closing admin for the Secretlab AfD. I have since recreated the page, after assessing that it was deleted for overt promo violations (I have no access to the deleted revs though), with no prejudice to a proper recreation (as I hope I've done), but a trigger-happy new page reviewer tagged it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was deleted before. I just want to make sure that I understand the AfD correctly because I'm 99%sure that the subject in itself is notable. Kinda annoys me when people just slap boilerplate speedy tags without looking twice (e.g. Claiming that the recreated article doesn't differ much from what was deleted!!!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive Hello Missvain: WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive! Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list. This Month in GLAM: June 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Arash MardaniDear User:Missvain, I want recreate Arash Mardani page that you previously deleted. Unfortunately I don't have access to see the reason for deletion. If you allow me, I'll rewrite this article because of the notability. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC) The Rumba KingsDear User:Missvain I have updated the page for The Rumba Kings and added another recent source of information. Please re-review and kindly approve if acceptable. This is notable group because it features co-founder Johnny Bacolas, who has been in 3 musical groups that appear on wikipedia. Thank you kindly. Christian nanettiWhy did you delete that page. He is a footballer who played for Cork City, a top level football team, and thus meets the guidelines for inclusion as noteable. Denial of Penn State Dance Marathon articleRegarding your denial of this article: User_talk:Hoyadonis#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Penn_State_Dance_Marathon_(December_11) I have two questions: 1. How does Penn State's THON not merit its own article while Northwestern University Dance Marathon and Indiana University Dance Marathon have their own separate ones despite being significantly smaller and less notable events? (As seen in the the links on the article for dance marathon) 2. Does this not go against WP:Parallel histories? I'll defer to user:JJMC89's comment in this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth/2019_Sep_17#Penn_State_Dance_Marathon (apologies for pasting URLs; I'm unsure of how to properly format them.) Hoyadonis (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging New message from Narutolovehinata5 Message added 11:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Happy Adminship Anniversary!  Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Disambiguation link notification for July 30An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamarack Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Cardinal Newman High School logo.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Cardinal Newman High School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Beckwourth Complex Fire.Thank you for your work on the Beckwourth Comex Fire article. The naming system was correct, complex fires are referred to in the singular, with the word "fire" capitalized. And should you decide to rename articles in the future, please use the move option, not a redirect. Thank you. Crescent77 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
No, no, no. You're way off base here. I also work in the "wildfire field". But that doesn't matter here, what does is the sourcing, which clearly indicates "Beckwourth Complex Fire" is the approproate naming convention. There's plenty of discussions out there about that, please take a look. You were the one who started a second page, and then copypasted and added a redirect, all of which makes for an editing mess. That was not my doing, you need to go back and look at what you did. TBH, your editing was rather erratic, and not to be rude, you might need to slow down and reconsider your work. There's some serious problems with what you did.
Crescent77 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 8An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McFarland Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burns. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) This Month in GLAM: July 2021
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted articleHello, Missvain! A few months ago, I wrote an article about a journalist which was deleted by an RfC which you closed. Since then, I've noticed several more pieces of RS coverage which I think would push him over the threshold of notability. I have created an updated version of the article in my sandbox, which I think certainly meets the GNG. I don't want to just go ahead an recreate the page without checking in after it was deleted, but could I have permission to publish the content in my sandbox and bring the article back with its new sources? Thanks, Mover of molehills (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
WHY WOULD U DELETE MY ARTICLE???? why did u delete my yungeen ace article. Lbj23goat (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
