This is an archive of past discussions with User:P,TO 19104. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone deleted one of my edits to the talk page (which was not conflicting with the previous ones) -- are they allowed to do that? And also, why did they do that?
P,TO 19104 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It would make this discussion a lot more concrete if you could point to the edit which deleted one of your edits.
Yes, they are 'allowed' to do it, but they should have provided a reason in the edit summary that explained why they were doing it. And you are 'allowed' to restore it, also giving an explanation in the edit summary.
In some cases, this could be the result of an error or mistake and be completely inadvertent. Without an edit summary explaining why, it's difficult to know what the other editor was thinking (or not thinking) when they did it.
So are we talking about Talk:Normandy landings? You appear to have made a mistake in appending 30K of an existing discussion to your support !vote. It's so obvious a mistake as to hardly require an edit summary, but an edit summary would have been a proper gesture. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)15:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I all ready got help on this... thank you for paying attention! P,TO 19104 (talk)
thank you for your remarks. the page is under construction and zill add more content and surces soon.
thank you for your comprehension.
Proposed deletion nominations
Hello, when nominating articles for proposed deletion please make sure you properly substitute the template. The text you should place at the top of the article should be as follows: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}. This way, the date and time that you nominated the article for deletion is automatically populated in the tag, which in turn makes it easier for administrators to determine whether 7 days have passed since nomination. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kuyabribri: Will do. Did you fix my mistakes or will I have to go back and do it myself?
I've gone ahead and added the timestamps to the four articles you tagged today, so you don't need to do anything with articles you've already tagged. —KuyaBriBriTalk18:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There was a problem with the formatting of the deletion nomination for Jonathan Peter -- this edit was the problem. I've fixed the nomination already (and agreed with it, because the actor does not appear to be notable yet). --Metropolitan90(talk)19:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you are doing well.
The content for the Dineout page is in an informative manner to give the reader a clear picture of the nature of the business. There is no intention of promoting the business with the words used or the manner in which it has been drafted. I have put across our best attempt to meet the relevant criteria for content on Wikipedia. I have found more references as well and we’ll be adding the content soon. I request you to allow me time till Monday (June 22) to add more content/references to the page.
R.Sawant2020 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@R.Sawant2020: One of the things I noticed is that the article contains the {{Undisclosed paid}} header that is very old and it has been moved from being a draft back to an article a lot. Although the tag does not have any explanation to it, it is a testament to the article's possible promotional intent. If you are going to change it I have some recommendations:
1) Edit it as draft.
2) Remove the {{Undisclosed paid}}
3) Remove the AfD tag.
One of the things that is most problematic is that there is nothing bad said about the company and the article only lists their products. That also needs to change.
@P,TO 19104: thanks for explaining the steps in such a simple manner, I will be adding more to the article and will make sure all the pointers you have shared are covered
Hi :@P,TO 19104: my article about Dineout has been deleted. Can you please help me to understand, if same can be re-instated in draft as there's more content and reference links that I was going include in article which will be helpful for readers in India to understand more about Dineout.
R.Sawant2020 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. With regard to procedures for nominating articles for deletion, you might be better served to bookmark WP:AFD, which contains more detailed instructions than the template in your sandbox. More specifically, WP:AFDHOWTO takes you directly to these instructions on the same page. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Finngalltalk15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
I noticed that you tagged Ilija Martinović with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airrosti as withdrawn. However, per WP:WDAFD, "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it". As I voted 'weak delete' and would consider my vote somewhat valid, this discussion should still be open. I'd recommend self-reverting the close and allowing the discussion to continue. I'd also suggest reviewing WP:CLOSEAFD before closing another discussion so you get the formatting right. Hopefully this makes sense and please understand this is just one of the more obscure areas of Wikipedia policy- there's a lot to learn! If you have any questions, please just don't hesitate to ask them. Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork00:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: I am sorry. I must have planned to do this before I noticed your comment! I must have also thought the withdraw process was similar to the WP:ITN process. How do you close a discussion without getting the cyberbot reverting the AfD tag removal? Is there a proper way of closing these AfDs? As you can see I was given two different notices by it. Thank you, please know this was a mistake and I had no intention of vandlising Wikipedia and thought that the consensus was through and through against removal. Thank you for supporting the AfD! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a very complicated manual procedure that's laid out at WP:CLOSEAFD, with all sorts of templates that must be used to make the close formal, I'd recommend reading the guidelines there. I personally use the script XFDcloser, which will do all of the templates for you and ensure the close is correct. I thought you might have made a mistake-- deletion is a very technical process that takes a while to get the hang of. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork19:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Bo en. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online01:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This was a procedural mistake on my part by not using the right discussion template and removing the AfD template too soon. The discussion was complete though and the nomination was withdrawn. Thank you, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
I am looking at the warnings and advice on your talk page and concerned you do not currently have the judgement level for raising PRODs and AfDs. Inappropriately raising is disruptive:
Per WP:PROD Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion . Do you agree ?
Per sarah777's rating of the draft article at WikiProject Ireland as low importance would you not consider a PROD'ing of Hawk's Well Theatre likely to be controversial ?
@Djm-leighpark: I am sorry for the disagreement. The notices above are unrelated to inappropriately marking articles for deletion. I was just a little concerned the subject may not be notable (WP:NOTTRAVEL); one of the contributing factors was that it was previously deleted. Thank you for your advice, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark can you please explain what issues with judgement have been raised on their talk page? Aside from an issue with transclusion and some technical errors and one very newbie closure of an AFD *they* nominated, I don't see what you're talking about. In fact, I expect many errors from newbies on the technical side of deletion nominations but I fail to see how this has anything to do with judgement. Praxidicae (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. In my opinion no way was this every going to be uncontroversial deletion in a reasonable judgement. The previous deletion was a WP:G12 copyright deletion which is mandatory deletion and which I can't build from (I'd actually think I decided to use precisely the same name when I created the draft 6 months ago). For any other article I'll generally get the deleted version pulled back and build from that. No one's pitches in with this being 6 months in draft. The article's not great but at somepoint a photo will eventually appear and I've just got it de-orphaned in the mentime and in Template:Theatres in Ireland and its a little better.
@P,TO 19104, thanks for the deProd. I've improved the article a bit but the Sligos can surely do a better job. Apologies for my grammar/spelling .. I was/am really only a 7/10 English guy. Best wishes, too much time on deletion stuff tends not to be great.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Brad Parscale - possible paid editor?
On the Brad Parscale article, you posted a {{Undisclosed paid}} template, without any explanation in the edit summary, or on the Talk page. Please don't do that again. If you have some reason to believe that a paid editor was involved in an article, you need to provide some details.
It's possible that you are confusing lack of neutrality (WP:NPOV issues) with paid editing. The two are not the same, particularly for articles about politics or people in politics. (The Brad Parscale article already had a template about a lack of neutrality.)
I reviewed the history of the Brad Pascale article. The original article looks fine to me, though it is odd that the editor who created it has made no other edits. But the original article is quite neutral (factual), and it was moved out of Articles for Creation by another, more experienced editor. I didn't find any other major contributor to the article, but it's gone through a lot of edits since being created - which again is why, if you identified a problematic editor, it would have been very helpful to actually mention that editor, somewhere.
I'm going to go ahead and remove the template. If you believe it still belongs in the article, please put it back, but this time with an explanation, in the edit summary or on the article's Talk page. -- John Broughton(♫♫)17:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@John Broughton: Ah, that edit was done a little while ago -- I think I may not have known that you needed an explanation, but anyways it was the creator of the article: User:Theresa Hong. I wasn't sure the tag needed an explanation since it was the author that had the COI. If you believe it is neutral I will not replace it.
Also, the article was nominated to be checked for its neutrality before I made edits to it.
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Hi P,TO 19104, the above is the info of edit summary which might help you to understand of what other editors mentioned to you. Do note that Wikipedia articles/content are the collaboration of many editors, to leave a brief edit summary prior saving the edit would help other editor to understand why/what info (add/remove/change) you have done to the article. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia(talk)22:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
