Jump to content

User talk:Ansh666/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Closed AfD

I redirected this after seeing you already closed it here as redirect. It seems you forget, or I am missing something? –Ammarpad (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...script error probably. ansh666 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

R2 and RfD

Hi, is there any chance you might be able to restore Sockpuppet investigation? I don't reckon the RfD is very likely to result in keeping, but I think we should give it a chance, similar redirects have occasionally been kept in the past (and yes, WP:R2 doesn't apply to redirects into the project namespace). – Uanfala (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, appears to have already been dealt with. – Uanfala (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, completely forgot that. Thanks Uanfala, {{u|bd2412}, and Tavix. ansh666 19:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Messed up the ping: bd2412, thanks. ansh666 19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Roadster

Now that Elon Musk has posted images of the car attached to the launcher on Instagram can the article go back to main space or should there be another discussion? Hektor (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I would personally say to hold off until the actual launch, but if you think it's ready I won't stop it; just be prepared for the possibility of another AfD. ansh666 20:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
oh I can wait. All I hope is that it does not become a general rule that spacecraft cannot have an article before being launched. The Verge Hektor (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd say there's a bit of a difference between something like the James Webb Space Telescope, which is a definite thing, and the private whims of a genius with a lot of money. So fear not, rockets will not need to be launched before they get an article; just the silly ones ;) Primefac (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

In reference to the deletion of the page

Hi Ansh666, I checked your deletion on my page. Please help me with creating the page again since I am a new user. I may have carried some activities without any intention to violate due to my inefficiencies on Wikipedia.

Vasantrao Madhavrao Ghatge (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, your page is currently at Draft:Vasantrao Ghatge. It will be reviewed and judged as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which will either accept your submission and move the page to the article space for you, or decline and give feedback for you to improve it. This may take a while, so patience is advised. ansh666 07:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Ansh666!!


Hi Ansh666, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tom Bayliss

User:EchetusXe has asked for a deletion review of Tom Bayliss. 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. —Cryptic 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

review of deletion

Hi,

I am writing to see what can be done to show the legitimacy of a page you recently deleted and possibly get it back up and running. Is this the right forum to discuss in?

I also draw your attention to the fact that the initial person causing a query has been halted from action in this regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adsfvdf54gbb

Looking forward to hearing from you

Wodzislaw Elsley (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the page was deleted because it was determined that it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, WP:GNG (for all articles) and WP:MUSICBIO (for musicians, specifically), as well as the policy at WP:BLP1E (regarding people whose coverage relates to one event). In other words, the article was deemed to not have enough reliable sources covering the subject in enough depth to support an article. I can restore the article for you in either your own userspace (User:Wodzislaw Elsley/Vov Dylan) or draft space (Draft:Vov Dylan) if you wish to keep working on it, but please don't return it to the article space until it passes the relevant checks - the WP:Articles for creation draft process may be able to provide some feedback, though it's currently very slow. I'd also suggest reading through the guidelines on conflict of interest editing and autobiographies. Thanks and good luck, ansh666 03:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Ansh666: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks

Thanks for deleting that page. However, I only meant for the "Wikipedia:" one to be deleted. I wanted the sandbox one to remain a redirect. Any chance User:Amaury/sandbox/Lip Sync Battle Shorties could be restored and redirect to Lip Sync Battle Shorties? Thank you in advance. . Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. If this happens again, you can just recreate it yourself - the one deleted edit is just the incorrect redirect, so there's no real attribution issues. ansh666 05:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ansh666 for deleting that page. 🙂🎄Sumit 09:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitmpsd (talk • contribs)

review of deletion - Nakhavaly Brothers

Thanks for your feedback on Nakhavaly brothers page. I noticed that another editor has nominated the page for delation. I would appreciate if you can guide us me through it. CHeers, Philipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolefon (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John Hervey Wheeler

Good morning, I'm a relatively new AfC'er and am having a look at the above. He's clearly Notable, but there is a major issue in that it's got no citations. I see you deleted an earlier version. The reason given is "Cross-namespace redirects". I'm not familiar with this. Does it mean that the article already exists under another name? I'd be grateful for any advice. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically, the page used to be in the article space, but the creator moved it away to User:John Hervey Wheeler (probably on accident while trying to move it to a userspace sandbox). This left behind a cross-namespace redirect from the article space to userspace, which I deleted per WP:CSD#R2. The only version of the article left as far as I can see is at Draft:John Hervey Wheeler, which you've been looking at. ansh666 08:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed. I'll review and highlight the need for inline Reliable sources. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Please help close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ting (footballer), result is speedy delete, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

John H. Stamler

Hi Ansh666, could you please explain your reasoning in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H. Stamler as keep. I did not see a clear consensus there. The keep/delete votes were evenly split. And although I understand it is not simply a vote, I really do not see any strong argument on the keep side. I think you misinterpreted my explanation of the sources. I was pointing out the the obituary was routine coverage and in the other sources Stamler was not the subject of the article, they merely mentioned or quoted him. I do not believe this meets GNG. Two of the keep arguments were (wrongly) based off of the assumption that a New York Times obituary equals automatic notability. The third claimed that the sources "indisputably" met the notability standard with no further explanation (I can assure you this is not the case as the outcome of the discussion would have been unanimous). I would recommend relisting this instead so we can get some outside input as the three "keep" voters usually vote as a block in these type of discussions. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand your statement. I thought you meant that the obit was a good source, sorry. I'll relist it. Thanks, ansh666 04:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it!--Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I would also recommend relisting WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew K. Ruotolo for similar reasons (ie. there really should have been more input), but if you disagree I won't dispute it.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm. That one is different - sources were added after the first delete comment, then others decided they were good and nobody disputed it afterwards, so I don't think I'm going to relist that one. ansh666 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion!

You did right thing in the first place Ansh, my T/P needs a serious cleanup of w/p messages! Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hah, well, I'm sorry I reverted myself then. Cheers, ansh666 03:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lucas

I'm not sure where your close leaves us. The vast majority of the article text is almost certainly a copyvio. I know that people argued that the subject is notable (and I agree that he is), but that still leaves us with a massive copyvio problem. I took another look at the text to see if I could clean it up. Despite some effort, I can't find a way to resolve the copyvio without essentially removing all the text. Leaving the existing text, either in the active revision, or visible in the article history, is in direct contradiction to WP:COPYVIO. Would you be willing to reconsider your close? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought about this but there's really nothing I can do about it as far as the AfD goes. I'm not sure if G12 applies (I think it might, since most of the page is still basically the same); I wouldn't be opposed to cutting it down to a stub or deleting altogether per WP:Deletion policy#Copyright violations. I wouldn't consider it circumventing consensus if you deleted the article on those grounds. ansh666 05:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alansohn, Smartyllama, Wizardman, and Diannaa: OK, here's my plan. I'm going to WP:G12 the article, then recreate it as a stub. I'll preserve the existing references on the talk page, to make it easier for some future editor to rebuild this from clean sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
No objections from me. ansh666 23:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

About Tehran Provincial League

Hi there,

Why Tehran Province League page was redirected to Iranian football league system#Current system? How about the data and the page proper? Would you care to provide and answer please? vathlu (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There was consensus at the AfD discussion that the Tehran Province League does not meet English Wikipedia's notability standards. The content is still viewable in the page's history. ansh666 19:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There were only four other participants apart from me and the user who nominated the page for deletion, 1 users said merge or redirect, 1 said merge, 1 said redirect and 1 said delete. And you redirected the page, so basically two users can decide if an event is notable or not? Don't you think you went a little too far? Anyways, this league is notable because it was Iran's top flight for more than 50 years from 1920s to 1972 and again during the 1980s and as top flight of a country it is notable. Besides I have seen other local league's pages on wikipedia and I do not see them being deleted, for instance: London_League_(football). I would like to say that is Tehran's equivalent league. So I would like to ask please restore that page. Thanks for your attention. vathlu (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, all four supported the article not being notable, just in different ways, and I took the middle ground. You're the only one who thinks it is. Do you have a guideline page which says that a top flight league is automatically notable? Because otherwise the article didn't meet WP:GNG - it had no sourcing at all. ansh666 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here says: All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable. vathlu (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not a guideline; it's an essay by a WikiProject. As far as I can tell, leagues must still meet WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG, which requires sources. ansh666 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And if I remember correctly I said I will happily add independent sources to support the article but it was just deleted. I have enough sources about this League / Championship from different Iranian websites, newspapers, weekly magazine and etc... vathlu (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted; if you want to add sources, simply undo the redirect to restore the content and add them in. ansh666 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do! Cheers. vathlu (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, me again, I would like to restore this article as you said, but it is not clear for me, should I keep the deletion tag or should I remove that? Thanks. vathlu (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove it, please. Thanks, ansh666 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The deletion of "Episode-Choose Your Story" Article

The deletion of the article had given me little time to react, the administrators stated my article was promoting a certain thing. If that is the case, could you tell me how I should edit my article to be fit on the Wikipedia Page. Also, if there are other thins i could improve upon, I would be delighted to hear the suggestions. Please contact me for the original article.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L weiwei yt (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni was the one who deleted your page; I just removed a redirect left over from when it was moved to draft. ansh666 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
L weiwei yt in my view it was effectively a glossy brochure for the product. My standard offer for any G-criteria CSD is to offer to email the text to you so you can rework it offline, and submit it. Should you want to do so, you can let me know on my talk page, and I will.
In other news. Great to bump into you ansh :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Tehran Province League

Sorry, I didn't look at the edit history and thought it was just another redirect or merge AfD outcome that hadn't been carried out. I might have asked you about it... Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, it's probably in a better place now. ansh666 19:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection template tagging breaks redirects

Please take care when tagging protected redirects, as there is currently a bug in Twinkle which causes the redirect to break. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ansh666 17:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Smith & Wesson

Cute. Throw in the last word, then lock it down before I, or anyone can respond. Your comment (and now my reply);

"Not suggesting that you should strike or remove your comments. You're discussing whether content should be placed on a different article (Smith & Wesson M&P15), and that can't be decided here in any case. Focus on this article, Smith & Wesson. ansh666 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)"

I was simply responding to the comments made by Cavalryman V31, which were not out of line with subject of the discussion. Those comments could potentially affect further contributions (or !votes as we don't call them) by other editors. Any opinion that could affect the consensus, should have a reasonable counter-opinion. But that said, thanks closing it down, that's just what I was asking for at the WikiProject Firearms talk page anyway. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm? I didn't lock down anything. ansh666 20:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Lock down, close, hat, whatever. Anyway, now that you have closed the discussions at Talk:Smith & Wesson, Talk:Modern sporting rifle and Talk:Colt AR-15 and directed them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms, would you be willing to also close the proposal there (that you've now fulfilled) and write a proper, neutral RfC there to hopefully kick off a discussion that will lead to a community-wide consensus? Thanks. - theWOLFchild 21:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't close anything, that was dlthewave. ansh666 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why this? If we don't want three separate discussions about the same thing on three different pages, why would we want three separate discussions about the same thing on the same page? And we certainly don't need that proposal anymore. If you don't want me hatting them, then hat them yourself. There is a reason to hat, you don't have a reason to un-hat. We're trying to have a single, centralized discussion there, so that hopefully we can have solid consensus and put all this disruption to rest. You want me to re-do it?, or would you rather do it yourself? - theWOLFchild 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why hide them? It's still useful to have them visible. If you're going to close them, use {{atop}} and {{abot}}. Also, don't hide across level 2 sections, since that breaks TOC links. ansh666 00:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't "hide" anything, I left it open (collapsed=no). If TOC was the concern, why not just switch the sections to level 3, or ask me to do it, instead reverting everything? But, whatever... I'll go use 'archive' instead of 'hat' like you asked. - theWOLFchild 01:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
They don't need to be closed anyways; they were just notifications of previous discussions. ansh666 01:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Junior Charles

kindly reverse the deletion of the juinor charles page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensfire (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Greensfire: I deleted the page because there was consensus that he did not meet either the notability guideline for track athletes or the general notability guideline. These guidelines require the existence of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources for every Wikipedia article. ansh666 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus there was a comment. The recent updates I did had various sources sited. If my memory serves me correct the last one stated that he made nationals as was sighted in the article I placed for reference. I understand that being from a third world country probably doesn't mean much but it does for the people from the third world country for starters. I have seen plenty profiles of Jamaican, American and Bahamian athletes with far less indor and NO UPDATES that haven't been flagged. Again I have been personally updating this particular article.

Tell you what: I've restored the article to Draft:Junior Charles. The sources aren't quite enough to meet notability, since they're mostly just routine reporting on meet results, so I'd advise against moving it back until it definitely does meet one of the notability guidelines. ansh666 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance Un-Delete actor article and key reference restored

Hi Ansh666 I need additional time and some guidance please on whether you can assist in un-deleting the page for Bryan Earl Kreutz. There has been and was still an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Earl Kreutz. I'm asking for an un-delete as you'll see I've added a restored newspaper that is independent and a very notable reference for Bryan Kreutz at the end here. I don't know if these apply for your generous assistance but I looked them up if they help us both. Wikipedia:Deletion review Relisting discussions I propose this

  • Keep for a rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) this page, though not necessarily in its current form.

I last asked for more time to obtain these reference articles as re-published on the original websites from their respective newspaper editors. As of literally a few minutes ago today I obtained the Belleville News Democrat Article written heavily about the aforementioned actor.

  • Don't Delete* The article has 2 verifiable sources that were of course older from 2014 and retrieved in previous edits. Three of the key notability sources showed "Bryan Kreutz" as a notable story on their respective newspaper websites, being 2 years later there is no longer links to source from some of the other original websites only 3rd party sites. Not to mentioned there are multiple other visible websites where the actor/Producer Bryan Kreutz is referenced.

This article is a good example why WP:NOTBROKE is in place as "Bryan Kreutz" and some, not all, of the links are aged. Moreover if thre links are "fixed" or simply re-visited they sometimes would not contain the previously retrieved data that ***solidified independent*** and ***notable reference sources*** when it was initially created. I'm asking for your help to un-delete with an offer to help re-write for cleanup to keep the article. There are additional references from the article that are available and referenced. Here's a reference link that was sent today minutes before your BOT deleted it so i would like to corroborate my story with that Independent and notable reference pointing at Bryan Kreutz <ref>http://www.bnd.com/entertainment/tv/article201355454.htmlCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Techform (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry. You added the source with others a week ago, on the 14th, and several editors weighed in afterwards stating that they weren't enough for notability. As stated in the discussion, the Belleville News Democrat is a small local newspaper, which is not enough. ansh666 22:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I was looking for some assistance from you in addition to you restoring the article, not just a "No sorry". There is absolutely no mention to the article being a local small newspaper by editors. The article was being questioned as being on a 3rd party copyright violation website on the 14th and now I have the actual website restored as an independent notable source to add to the many there. Please read into this further. The reference link was e-mailed to me from BND.com today and within the link on the web-page it even has today's date 2-21-2018. I also asked a few other things from you about Wikipedia:Deletion review and Relisting discussions. Before hopefully not having to take that route, I see you've restored others pages who ask for this and ask you do the same for me please. Techform (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"There is absolutely no mention to the article being a local small newspaper by editors." Well, except for this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I would restore the article if I thought it had a chance, like the previous article you mentioned, but I unfortunately don't think that's true for this one. Consensus is that the subject is not currently close to notable. If that changes in the future - which would require much better sourcing - you may recreate the article, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines first. Thanks, ansh666 06:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Hello Ansh666. I need your help - the protection template that you applied here needs to be put inside a <noinclude></noinclude> command. These current event pages always transclude to other pages and those get thrown into the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates when a protection template does not have the "noinclude" placed around it. As I am not an admin I can't perform the necessary edit. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the note. ansh666 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for the edit. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hi,

Hope I'm doing this right. I was wondering if you could restore Steve Aylett, or give me some guidance on the correct procedure to follow?

The article may not have been great quality, but Steve Aylett really is a significant contemporary writer, who definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The closing reason was that the sources given didn't pass WP:GNG, but the editor who suggested them mentioned that these sources were merely the result of a quick Google. There weren't any attempts by editors to find better sources appropriate to speculative fiction (e.g. using [1]). I know comparisons with other articles don't carry weight, but Aylett is now one of only two example authors on Bizarro_fiction without a page of his own.

The primary factor, which I hope is enough in itself, is that there is a comprehensive study, Steve Aylett: A Critical Anthology, which is a collection of essays devoted to Aylett's work, with a dozen or so contributors, including academics as well as authors such as Michael Moorcock, Alan Moore, D. Harlan Wilson, and others. These essays offer multiple perspectives on Aylett's work, grounded in literary scholarship, and should provide more than enough material to improve the article.

Thank you!

Franciscrot (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Franciscrot: I've restored the article to Draft:Steve Aylett. The best course of action would be, of course, to find better sources and add them to the article, then move it back when it's ready - it sounds like you already have some on hand, which is great. You may want to use WP:AfC to get feedback, but that's by no means necessary. Good luck, ansh666 22:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much! Franciscrot (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry

Hi. I'm not here to criticise your closure. It was indeed close, but personally I would have found strength of arguments just sufficient enough to delete. I'm torn between taking it to DELREV, which wouldn't be fair to you, and starting a new AfD now that a few months have elapsed. The article was one of the works of a blocked and banned paid editor whose behaviour unleashed the current rounds of discussions on paid editing. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think starting a new AfD would probably be the best course rather than trying to re-litigate the old one, which was indeed very close. From what I can tell the fundamental dispute (which I didn't summarize particularly well) was whether or not human interest pieces count as substantial-enough coverage to meet GNG, and there was no real sense of agreement on that issue either way. FWIW my personal opinion is that they don't (though as far as I can tell no policy/guideline specifically mentions them) and thus that he's probably not notable. BLP1E was also mentioned and discussed slightly, though I don't think it applies here. Regarding the KDS thing, I remember that discussion, though I'm not sure how relevant it is (unless there's some kind of proof that this was one of the articles that KDS received compensation for, in which case I say kill it with fire); the current article is pretty different from the initial creation, and they don't seem to have edited it ever since. Good luck and thanks for asking me first, ansh666 05:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi wedding songs

Asnh, a reminder not to close discussions as wrong venue without opening a new discussion at the correct venue. It's also a good idea to post a message on the nominator's talk page telling them where to find the discussion. I've done both. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The onus is and has always been on the nominator to keep up with the discussion and reopen one in the proper place. This one discussion is no different from what I've been doing for the last 5 years. ansh666 23:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's an obvious corollary of WP:BITE, don't punish someone for not knowing our obscure rules. If you're not willing to open a new discussion in the proper place, let someone else close it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:BITE; there's neither hostility nor punishment. Besides, I pointed to the right place in the close. If you just do it for them, they don't learn anything, and it's the easiest way to get something speedy kept for a lack of rationale. ansh666 00:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh....

Hi, Ansh - where is the TP for Hadrut Region? It needs to go with the move. Atsme📞📧 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the move utility didn't work because the talk page for Hadrut Province blocked it (even though it managed to delete the mainspace page just fine ), but EurekaLott's taken care of it now. Thanks, ansh666 18:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep. An existing talk page (even a blank one) will prevent a talk page from accompanying its article when moved. You can avoid the problem by deleting the talk page when deleting the article. - Eureka Lott 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
So deleting and then moving is more efficient than going through the move function's "yes, delete this page" nonsense...what a horrorshow of a UI. Will keep that in mind, thanks. ansh666 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Either way, it's a few steps when there's an existing page and talk page at the target title. If you delete the page first, you need to delete its talk page separately. If you move the page first, you need to move the talk page separately. - Eureka Lott 19:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure

Greetings. In your closing of the AfD about the article "Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018," you suggested that "a merge discussion would have been more useful." As a participant in that AfD, I'm very interested in your suggestion. In which other article would you suggest the contested one should be merged? Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That comment was prompted by the nomination statement. Number 57 mentioned that the article had already been merged to Swiss referendums, 2018 but that the merge had been undone; he further clarified that the nomination was not a suggestion to remove this material from Wikipedia, which frankly should have signalled a WP:SK#1 speedy keep. ansh666 08:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Number 57 did not want a separate article for the contested subject; they wanted it as only a mere mention in the list about Swiss referendums (a list which the nominator has created in Wikipedia). There would be no link (e.g. "for more, see...") to a separate article from that list. On the other hand, all "keep" supporters, including me, had no objections for the list of Swiss referendums to contain the item about the contested one, of June 2018, with a wikilink taking us to a separate, stand-alone article. Hope this is clearer now. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Todd Giebenhain

Todd Giebenhain

Todd Giebenhain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please retrieve it back, major thankies Maude~Duggel (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The deletion discussion determined that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, and thus does not merit having his own article. It doesn't matter whether or not he is your favorite actor. Please take the time to read and understand the notability guidelines before creating any more articles. ansh666 00:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Study abroad --> International student

Hello, about two months ago you were the closing Admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study abroad in which the decision was made to merge Study abroad to International student. Nobody has yet done the merge. I came across the matter at the Article Rescue Squadron and considered doing the merge myself, but found it difficult to reconcile these two related but quite different topics. Also, most of the voters who recommended "Merge" did so with quite specific reasoning that complicates the process. So anyway, is it common policy to place some sort of responsibility on the AfD voters to help with the merge process themselves? If not, it seems unlikely that anyone will do it. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a massive backlog of articles waiting for a merge after an AfD. There is zero responsibility for AfD voters or closers to carry out a merge that they recommend. Whether the two are related...well, I'll let you decide for yourself. I took a brief look at both when I closed and again now, and I agree that the content doesn't really go well together, nor with Student exchange program which was also a suggested target, but the consensus of the discussion was unfortunately pretty clear. I'm really not the best person to ask about this; perhaps the people who suggested the merge would have more ideas. ansh666 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Well there is unlikely to be a solution for that particular pair of articles anytime soon. But one good outcome here is that I did not know about that massive backlog of merge decisions. I just completed three merges from that list myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Algebraic Geometry (journal)

Hi, You want to have this merged into a redirect?? --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. There was discussion about merging to several different places, or merging another article with this one into that redirect to make it a separate article. I put the title that was mentioned most into the target box of the closing script, and it automatically added the tag with that target. Feel free to merge (or switch the tag) to the other one I mentioned in the closing statement. ansh666 21:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Flaming Fist

Hi, you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowled Wizards. However, I forgot to include Flaming Fist in the list of non notable articles. As you can see, it fails the notability criteria similarly to the other nominated articles. If you would be able to delete it as well, that would prevent me from having to create another unnecessary AfD. If you disagree, however, then tell me.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without being tagged for deletion, it can't be deleted as a result of that AfD. I'd try a PROD first, citing the AfD, and then open a new one if it's removed. Good luck, ansh666 22:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD Mimi Elsa

Greetings. You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIMI ELSA, but my next two rebuttal comments were replies to items above the relisting, so I put them with their respective comments. Is their a rule of thumb for this situation? Regards Tapered (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Thanks, ansh666 04:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Flesher Andrew

Oh for God's sake, the ONLY reason that the Flesher Andrew article is at the incorrect name is because the correct title Andrew Flesher has been salted against re-creation, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Flesher. In other words, you're enabling a bureaucratic end-run around another administrator's action.

Less bureaucracy and more common sense, please. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an AfD running, let it run to its inevitable conclusion. G4 doesn't apply, since the article is quite different from the one that was previously deleted. ansh666 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Housekeep request for closed AfD

Greetings. Could you, please, close down this AfD as a matter of housekeeping? -The Gnome (talk)

Ski Mask the Slump God

Hello,

Would it be possible for you to restore the latest version of the deleted page Ski Mask The Slump God to User:Hojimachong/SkiMask? You appear to be the point of contact based on the AfD discussion of this I believe they have now met several notability guidelines and would like to attempt to create the page again. If not, no worries. Thank you! Hojimachongtalk 04:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Be aware that there is also a draft at Draft:Ski Mask The Slump God (and I just deleted Draft:Ski Mask the Slump God for being an unattributed copy of the page now in your userspace). ansh666 04:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

AFD

Hi admin, just to refresh your memory, [2], it was closed by Swarm. I'm monitoring their contribution, and they seems to be back today. No problem up till now but since they are back, it's better to take closer look at them. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much, Ansh666, for your help with this page deletion!  Painius  put'r there  09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible ban evasion

Due to your involvment in this ANI discussion I'd like to point out this thread on FloridaArmy's talk page User_talk:FloridaArmy#Two_NRHP_listed_draft_articles, possible ban evasion ? - FlightTime (open channel) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ansh666/Archive_8&oldid=1050351786"