User talk:Kephir/archive/2014/08

File:MS-DOS 6 upgrade cover.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MS-DOS 6 upgrade cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge on Celebes crested macaque

I do not know if you saw it, but there was already a discussion started on the talk page on whether the copyright issue should be included in the article. Rather than have two discussions, I pointed your merge request to the existing discussion. I thought about moving your comment but it would not have made sense out of context. I decided it would be best to let you know, so you can edit your own comments. Periglio (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed it after the fact. Thank you. — Keφr 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

en.wiktionary

Please, if you are blocking bot, do not use autoblock, because bots operator cannot reply. Yes, bot was not authorised, but when I recently wanted to unblock and authorise, there was no will. Yes, bot made One bad edit (my mistake - wrong manual input) - I wanted to repair it, but it took too much time because of slow internet connection and working hours. There are incorrect links on categories and I need to use bot to repair it. I resigned to edit by bot main namespace, but I want to edit categories. And How can I ask for approval if you use autoblock and do not notify me? JAn Dudík (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JAn Dudík: autoblock turned off. Apologies. You really should get approval, though. Otherwise you will be flooding RC patrol. And please get it right. — Keφr 12:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass nominations

[Note: the following was in response to this message, removed from the talk page shortly after being posted. — Keφr 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)]

Kephir, you appear to me to be placing mass PRODs without looking for sources at all. Your rationales give no indication that you have complied with WP:BEFORE. They consist mainly of "unreferenced and no indication of notability". You consistently fail to explain what is supposedly wrong with the sources in GBooks, suggesting to me that you have not looked for sources at all. I tempted to suggest that approaches disruptiveness. Perhaps we could come to an agreement whereby you provide nomination rationales that actually make sense. And I apologise if I have made two mistakes. Have I made any others? I can hardly be rendering the process almost useless when I leave half or more the PRODs in place because I agree with them. I will stop all work on this for now until this is resolved. I will not remove any more PRODs whatsoever. James500 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you an inventory of your mistakes? Let's take BASIC09 an one example. There is a article which, regardless of whether it is notable, is an obvious redirect to BASIC, of which it is a variant. We don't delete plausible redirects unless they are misleading or POV etc. (WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP). A PROD should never have been placed on an article like that for reasons of notability alone. Likewise with the models of Compaq Presario, which are obvious redirects. Likewise with AsterFax and Green Screen of Death. James500 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are telling each other what to do, I suggest that you stop placing large numbers of innappropriate PRODs on obvious redirects. James500 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not a policy, WP:BURDEN is. If you argue that these articles should be kept, you need to cite information in them and justify the appropriateness of sources you used. The articles I nominate have had plenty of time to become cited; if nobody added valid sources to them, I think I am justified in assuming they just do not exist. Searching on Google Books gives printed books of Wikipedia articles as first result, and it happens so often that it is not even funny any more. Any idiot can type a phrase into Google and report the (merely estimated, and often overestimated) number of results. That does not establish notability; only actual sources do. I might be more sympathetic to your efforts if you actually added references to articles, instead of deprodding them at the last minute, just because it has some Google Books hits. But you seem to never do that.

You say "obvious redirects" — where are the actual redirects then? Why cannot a redirect be created after the article is deleted? Do we need to keep never elsewhere used or mentioned garbage content in edit histories forever? Also, redirects to targets which do not mention the redirecting title tend to be deleted. WP:TNT is a thing too. — Keφr 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:DPAFD, which is a policy, says "How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page". The said instructions include WP:BEFORE. So, even if WP:BEFORE isn't a policy, our deletion policy says that it has to be followed. James500 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What you are saying about redirects doesn't seem to be compatible with WP:R#CRD. James500 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think "the instructions at the top of the relevant process page" may just as well be read as referring only to WP:AFDHOWTO, especially that sections about other deletion processes at WP:DP do not mention what should be done before actually nominating. And if you want to practice some WP:ALPHABETSOUP WP:LAWYERING, WP:DPAFD does not apply to WP:PRODs.

Also, WP:RFD#DELETE reasons #5 ("redirect makes no sense": if the target does not mention the redirect's topic, the redirect is useless and makes no sense), #8 ("obscure synonym") disagree with you. — Keφr 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)