That's true. But it was about the celebrations undertaken by a company. No one criterion seemed to fit it word-for-word, but I felt that the spirit of the tag was the most appropriate. What action did you take on the article, because it clearly isn't up to scratch. — Fly by Night(talk)01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I have also replied at my talk page to the other comment.) If no criterion fits word-for-word, then it does not belong under speedy deletion. The criteria are strict for a good reason; that is all that has been established as "unquestionable". If you're going to argue a "company event" then why not "company products". The list goes on and on. It's been well-established that these items need to go through the proper avenues for deletion. I personally don't think the topic should be deleted; I would contest your PROD, but I cannot counter the point of "no indication of notability" right now. So I'll leave it be unless someone else wants to repair it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear that is my fault, I think that might be the case on a couple of articles. One's which I hadn't CSD'd etc I had unmarked. In future I shall make sure I do that on all of them. Thanks a lot for the heads up! Reichsfürst (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually get the articles from patrolling Special:Newpages, and actually I have clicked the "Marked as Patrolled" but sometimes I forget. My apologies, SwisterTwister (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - RMS Titanic. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at RMS Titanic - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page. But I'm sorry, there's no point having lots of different articles with the same information. If we did then we would dilute all of the information. It's better to have everything in one place so that people search on Wikipedia can find what they want quickly and easily, and so that we can focus all of the knowledge and enthusiasm of people on one article. That's how truly great things happen. — Fly by Night(talk)03:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your comments. The article is not really about selling pretty things in gift shops. There are also verifiable references. Any suggestions on how it can be improved? Afridel (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Thanks for bringing up your concerns. I appreciate the feedback, and will gladly elaborate on my decision.
Since AfD is based on consensus and not number of fors/againsts, in this case the consesus rode in favour of deletion. After all, the major label's article itself is only a stub, and there are no reliable sources to be found that verify the subject's notability.
But the fact of the matter is that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO by having several works released Armada Music. He has had several records included in compilations that have their own articles on Wikipedia. The artist has been reviewed and interviewed in several online magazines. It's also easy to argue that he passes WP:COMPOSER if you relax one's definition of composer and allow one that amalgamates sections of music instead of individual notes. Also, more people !voted for keep than they did for delete. It's amazing. — Fly by Night(talk)17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you don't agree with the outcome, and that's perfectly alright. However, my administrative decision is to delete - if you'd like to, you're welcome to start a deletion review entry. Cheers, m.o.p18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I am considering. Your administrative decision was to ignore consensus and to overlook the small fact that the subject meets the notability criteria. To be honest, it shows incredibly poor judgement. You could have reposted it due to lack on consensus because 3:2 in favour of keep is quite close; but you decided to overrule the will of the community. — Fly by Night(talk)19:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If only for politeness' sake; my previous edit was pointing you toward deletion review because I have nothing further to say about this. As previously stated, just because three people say yay and two say nay does not mean I'm going to go with the majority. Again, input is appreciated, but rehashing the same stuff over and over is extraneous. If you'd like to continue, please take it to deletion review - I'll be happy to explain more there. Cheers, m.o.p20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have just demonstrated your misunderstanding of the discussions. No-one said "yay"; people pointed to Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:MUSICBIO, to show why the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Moreover, no-one said "nay"; people explained their objections in detail. I'll give you credit where credit's due: you're doing a very good job at ignoring my repeated reference to policy. — Fly by Night(talk)20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I declined this speedy because it's not a hoax per se (although will probably be deleted anyway). I just don't want to give any more ammunition to the "omg wikipedia doesnt consider other points of view!!!11!!@@" crowd. ...discospinstertalk03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? It says that a town in the middle of England is in Scotland. You said yourself that the article doesn't belong, so why didn't you tag it for PROD or AfD? — Fly by Night(talk)03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must protest at you recent treatment of Govynn. Particularly the statement you add to his talk page saying "Wikipedia isn't the site for you". I have checked through Govynn's edits I feel he has added a great deal of value to Wikipedia. Possibly the Alternative regional geographies of the British Isles presents some challenges. However, it does not justify you harassing someone to such an extent that they feel they have to leave - it is tantamount to bulling. I suggest you apologise to him/her.
Oh, dear EditMonkey, the man whose contribution to a deletion discussion is "Please Please Don't delete it - I Love It. This is most entering [sic] and funny thing I have read on here." Please do not misquote me. As you can see from my post, I suggested that maybe Wikipedia is not for him. After the user created several articles where many has the edit history where he said "I know Wikipedia's polices, well, I haven't actually read then in full, but I just disagree with them." I suggested that Wikipedia may not be the site for him. Please get your facts right and do not misrepresent people as you have done here. If you do then, as you have done here, you end up looking like a fool. — Fly by Night(talk)22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have. At the time two articles linked to it, which in my book is few. Also, all of the footnotes were written in Arabaic, which in my book is not English. I see that you are also the creator of the article. That explains your aggressive approach. I would recommend that you don't remove such tags from your own articles as it could constitute a conflict of interest. — Fly by Night(talk)14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wasn't aggressive, and I really didn't intend to provoke you in any way. The article is not orphan and I quote from here: "only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles."
I seek no conflict with you but I think you started adding tags which sounded unreasonable to me coming from an adept contributor. --Rafytalk15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The {{orphan}} tag says "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it." The link you posted is a recommendation, nothing more. — Fly by Night(talk)16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your feelings about the Nazi descendent article, I don't think it was appropriate to start making suggestions that I wasn't being truthful about being a historian. Regardless of what you meant to say, that's how it came across. I have studied World War II since 1987, have a history degree from Virginia Tech, and have conducted professional research on the Holocaust at both the National Archives and the Holocaust Memorial Museum. In fact, this weekend, I am interviewing a survivor of Auschwitz who was a medical subject of Joseph Mengele. I'm not a professor and don't work at a university because I don't have a PhD - my service in the military has prevented me (so far) going back to school full time to get the necessary education. Don't take this the wrong way - you might not have meant anything by it, but it came across this way. I also, about a year ago, had to deal with a very nasty situation where another user began removing military data from my user page, claiming I was lying abut serving in the Navy. The user was blocked and later banned (for various reasons). Just an example of how these things can get out of control. So, with that said, I'm sorry I broke WCI, but I wanted to make clear I wasn't making false statements about my background. No hard feelings - I suspect also the article will probably get deleted. I am hoping perhaps it will be turned into a category at this stage. -OberRanks (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one that brought up your own credentials in the first place with this edit summary. You were trying to imply that your opinion was somehow more valid than mine because you were a "professional historian". The point is that you have just admitted that you are not a professional historian. It was clear from your edit style that you weren't, so I contested a claim that you yourself made. I tried to make light of it, share a similar personal story and move on; but you decide to come here and carry the drama on. Your experiences with other users do not concern me, especially after you responded to my olive branch with a theatrical display. You bluffed, I called your bluff, and now you feel silly. Well, tough luck. Please focus your energies on studying Wikipedia policy. — Fly by Night(talk)02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My actual title is "Military Records Historian" and I've had my job with the U.S. Archives for the past ten years. My whole point here is not to make you upset but point out that someone could see this as WP:NPA - in the harshest sense calling another user a liar on an article talk-page. That's exactly what happened with the user who got blocked for removing military service data from my user page a year ago. Anyway, I've segregated the conversation on the article talk page as unrelated to the speedy deletion debate - which it clearly is. If we can both agree to make no further posts on the issue, then we can go about our ways and let the deletion debate take its course. -OberRanks (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I contested a claim that you yourself made! A claim which has since be shown to be false. You can't say to someone "Dont get excited. I am a professional historian…" and not expect to get questioned on it. You made yourself look silly, get over it. How many times must I repeat myself?! — Fly by Night(talk)02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. I previously nominated the article for deletion, but it is still worth mention on M1911, so I copied the article text and source over.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your efforts tagging, but I'm worried that you thought that this was a good idea. It clearly includes a claim to notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're worried? Don't you think that that's a little strong? If someone knocks at my door at 4 am, then I get worried. I thought, and still do think, that it was a good idea to tag the article. It did not credibly indicate notability. It gave a link to a website that shows that the subject of the article plays in a second division team, and therefore the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The only thing that the article credibly demonstrates is that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. I gave a detail explanation on the article's talk page explaining my rationale. I tried to apply the spirit of the rule to make Wikipedia a better place; what's so worrying about that? I appreciate that we may disagree; but the tone of your message was totally unnecessary. We're just two editors. We agree on some things and we disagree on others. Some of your views will be unpopular with the majority, as will some of mine. Communication, and not condescending commentary, is the way to resolve such issues. — Fly by Night(talk)16:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the tone of your reply, just gosh. On the substance, articles that make any claim for notability are not suitable for speedy, even if you think the claim is weak or undeserving. --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's where there's a problem with the template and the policy. The template says "does not credibly indicate", and not simply "does not indicate". I'm sure you understand the difference between a credible indication and simply an indication. I feel that the former is more in line with the spirit of the policy. But that's what happened when you have several hundred thousand people with a common goal; there are bound to be differences in interpretation. As an aside, I would have appreciate a more explanatory and convivial post to begin with. If I do something that you disagree with then please tell me, but please explain to me too. That way people learn. But rest assured that your point is duly noted. All the best. — Fly by Night(talk)21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'm always ready to apologise if I've done something wrong and learn from the experience, but I'm really baffled here. Forget about the article, let's focus on improving my communication with another user. I thought I'd left you a friendly note (the first five words) that gently pointed out that I was worried that you'd tagged an article for speedy that wasn't really speediable. What could I have done better? --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: reverting one person that disagreed with my edits doesn't make ownership.
The article already had tau all over it before I got there. I was making good faith edits, I was actually about to take it out of the first sentence and scale it back a bit.
(edit conflict) user:Gandalf61 removes τ from the lead of turn (geometry), and what do you do? You replace it in the lead, add it to other places, then add a graphic in terms of τ. Another editor: user:David Eppstein reverts your edits as WP:POINTy introduction of non-standard notation, and what do you do? You revert claiming that his actions were in bad faith and severely disrupting the article. When I made changes to pi and tau, what did you do? You revert my edits. You've become a SPA, that is engaged in a WP:POINTy edit war with three users (who are all members of the Wikipedia maths project, and are all regulars at the maths reference desk). You might like to know that David is an administrator so your claims of bad faith edits are totally ridiculous. How many more editors are you going to argue with, undo their edits, and generally disagree with? Don't you think it's time to drop the stick, and back away? — Fly by Night(talk)15:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously just trying to improve the article, and it's not helped by your edit warring and wild accusations. Point of fact I had just come to the conclusion that it probably shouldn't be in the first sentence, and was planning to scale it back. But the article already had tau covered pretty thoroughly, even in the version you reverted back to and that had nothing to do with me, I didn't add it. -Rememberway (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even read gandalf's edit, and he didn't revert mine. That you've spun this as somebody edit warring me is really bizarre. -Rememberway (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that I'm an SPA isn't born out by my contributions record over the last day.
Where did I say that Gandalf undid your edits? Please re-read. How can I assume good faith when you leave edit summaries like this? You are assuming bad faith of a Wikipedia adminstrator, you're undoing the work of three other editors. How can I assume good faith?! I am not prepared to engage in some childish argument. I answered your original question, and that is all that I have to say on the matter. There is no point in repeating myself. Have a nice day. — Fly by Night(talk)15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Actually, I do replace the uncategorized tag with a real category whenever I can, either by replacing the uncat tag with a real category in AWB, or by skipping the article in AWB and then manually categorizing it with HotCat instead — you just don't see those because they're not ending up in Category:Category needed.
The thing is that AWB isn't a very good tool for tasks where you want to do something different to every article in a batch; except for the common spelling and formatting corrections that it automatically applies by itself, it's really only useful for repetitive tasks like "apply this particular tag and move on". For one thing, it doesn't offer a way to verify the existence or the wording of a category whose name you're not certain of — so if I make a mistake in the wording I have no way of verifying that before I click save, and then I'll just have to deal with it again anyway. So I can really only swap the tag out for a real category inside AWB if I personally know the category — and the categories I'm most directly familiar with probably aren't the same as the ones you are.
And also, while I have previously tried recruiting a "team" to help out so that I'm not always the only editor doing it, that petered out and I'm still the only person who regularly works with the Untagged Uncategorized Articles list — which means that if I don't do it for three or four days then the next time I go back the list has over a thousand articles on it. But I'm just not willing to manually categorize over a thousand articles in one sitting — so really all I can do is categorize the ones that directly jump out at me as titles I know how to deal with (e.g. names I recognize, etc.) and then tag the rest. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fly by Night. I am just letting you know that I deleted Black sands mud, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the generic template. It would be nice if you actually took notice of the facts,. The article was clearly an unambiguous advert; saying things like "Come and join us for…" It was a candidate for both WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Since admins seem to act faster with the former, I took that route. I'll let you review the article, and then review this generic message you just left. — Fly by Night(talk)00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Um... did you read the references from the interview with the BBC? He's also been interviewed by New Scientist. LOL oh well, I don't think he'll be deleted but whatever. -Rememberway (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. yes, I have. I even linked that BBC page on my Facebook page this morning because of it's clearly humerus and undertones. (I am a mathematician myself!) Have you read any of Wikipedia's notability criteria? Did you read the article for deletion page? The subject of the article was not Michael; he was simply interviewed in the article (along with several other people). He fails to meet the academic criteria WP:ACADEMIC. — Fly by Night(talk)21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW that factor of 2 is a real pain, it breaks the symmetry, when I write software I end up adding it in lots of weird places, using tau is much simpler and clearer. Anyway, I didn't add him or present him as an academic, I added him because he had expressed an interesting view that had seen widespread publication in multiple sources. -Rememberway (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. if you could avoid making multiple changes to people's talk pages it would be appreciated. If you have to make multiple not very substantial changes if you hit the 'minor' flag then it stops it looking like the person has received multiple different messages; it's actually bloody annoying(!) -Rememberway (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wiki, all of its users are free and able to edit whatever pages they chose. I shall continue to exercise that freedom. I will also use the minor flag on minor edits; as has always been my policy and also Wikipedia's policy. — Fly by Night(talk)23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the 'creator' of the page The Bunny The Bear. My apologies for its lack of sources. I'm new to the editing process and attempted to follow the format of other band pages. If you have any suggestions to how I could better the page, it would be appreciated. I am trying my best to start on Wikipedia and would like it to be as informative as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blafismfof (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
