Jump to content

User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD Marathon Sports (retailer)

Hi, please could you expand the reasoning for closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathon Sports (retailer). Sorry you only had a couple of !votes to go on. (WP:CORP / WP:GNG being my failed to mention implicit policy). Widefox; talk 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There were only three participants in the AfD, and two of them recommended "keep"; you were the only "delete" recommender. I don't object if you want to take this to AfD again, but there wasn't much of a case made in the original AfD for the non-notability of this chain of stores. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree my nom was weak, and only one !vote outside creator isn't great. If you don't mind, I will re-check the secondary sources and create a new one, or would you prefer to reopen / relist? Widefox; talk 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you start a new AfD rather than having the previous one reopened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wirths

I thought it should be deleted because it is now a surname page, not a dab page. Surname pages usually do not have talk pages.Hoops gza (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population

I see you deleted Template:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population as a recreation of a previous deletion. However, this page got deleted as an isolated TFD. When over a dozen related templates were TFDed they were kept. As a result, the closing admin of that TFD agreed to restore this one, which should not have been TFDed in isolation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. As an admin, I've already made the decision to restore the template. Any user, even a nonregistered one, can post on the template talk page to report the past TfDs and DRV that the page has been involved in. If other editors object to the template being restored, I doubt they would direct their objections to an editor who merely posted the {{Old AfD multi}} template on the template's talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you have a look at the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "WikiProject approved revision" at Template talk:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population. There didn't seem to be any WikiProject involvement in those events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That was the closest defined action for the template for talk page agreements to restore. Maybe I should talk to the template creator and request a restored upon administrator review action. I'll see what they say.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Carpetball

I missed the deletion discussion for this article. I agree with the outcome, but as a fan of the game I would like to preserve a copy of the article for myself against the day it becomes notable. -- LWG talk 19:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste pages

Funnily enough, there was another one I came across not very long before - Christoforos Bakaoukas. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sun 21:32, wikitime= 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stott Pilates

Hello. You kept Stott Pilates about ten days ago, after I had volunteered to do the work to bring it up to snuff. Given that I'm still a bit new to WP, I was wondering whether you'd advise that I do a complete rewrite and invite comments on that, or do lots of little edits to clean it up. I admit that I'm inclined to do a complete rewrite. Trevor Jacques (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again. I've finally completed the research and rewriting for the page. It's currently in my sandbox. I tried to both be thorough and accurate, with as many reliable references from the industry as possible. Effectively, the old references were only further reading, so I've put them there, at the same time as adding new and directly applicable references. FWIW, I know that many WP pages have social media links relevant to the subject matter of the page, so I included some for Stott Pilates. Perhaps I put in a little too much detail for the method, but, upon review, I think it is well balanced. If you need me to upload the contents of my sandbox to the Stott Pilates page before you review the page, again please just tell me, here, and I get it done. I look forward to your comments. Trevor Jacques (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You don't need my permission to do anything with regard to editing this page. However, I do have a couple of comments. Links to social media pages should be avoided -- see WP:LINKSTOAVOID, item #10. Also, there should not be trademark symbols within the main text of the article -- see WP:MOSTM. But, in any event, the Stott Pilates page is subject to normal editing and you don't need to clear your edits with me in advance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I've included them and uploaded the page. Actually, I was only looking for comments, rather than some form of permission. As a fairly new user, I've noticed that it's VERY easy to run afoul of policies and some editors, and that the policies are often so deeply buried that it's easy to be unaware of them, or to find them both confusing and sometimes contradictory. I was just asking for you to cast an editor's eye over them, because you obviously have much more experience with WP than I do. That way, I was hoping to avoid running afoul of editors by my making a faux-pas that was not evident to me. Thanks for your help and guidance. :-) Trevor Jacques (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have found reason to update my new version of the page in a week. So, I suspect that it is probably acceptable and that we can end this conversation. :-) Thanks again for your help and suggestions. Trevor Jacques (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD closure oddity

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (Sydney, Australia), the close you did seemed to add a bit off odd text at the footer. "DISCUSSION ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged" appears above the standard footer. -- Whpq (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of WebDrive

Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted our longstanding article on Webdrive, and I was wondering; why it was deleted? If the article was written as 'sales-ish', That's odd as we chose to base our content and structore on other software in our category, FTP clients, such as CuteFTP, ExpanDrive, WS_FTP and deliberately ommitted content to ensure that it explained more about the uniqueness of our technology and it's origins and less about it's commercial viability. If our product was deemed unremarkable, I would greatly disagree as WebDrive was the world's first commercial implementation of this technology in the world when released in 1997. It is still the defacto standard for accessing cloud storage and is relied on by customers in nearly 130 countries. We have existing Wikipedia entries in many other countries including Germany, France, and Russia.

Wikipedia is a fabulous resource, and we enjoy being included; please let me know how we can have our articles included.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southrivertech (talk • contribs)

  • To be precise, the deletion was based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebDrive, with which WebDrive with a capital D was deleted; Webdrive was deleted along with it because it was just a redirect to the deleted page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebDrive ended as a "delete" because in the 17 days that the deletion discussion was open, no participants recommended a "keep" for it. (I did consider 2 deletion recommendations against zero recommendations for anything else to be a consensus for deletion; some other Wikipedians might disagree with that.) In particular, one of the cited reasons for deletion was "Major contributor to article has clear COI [conflict of interest] and therefore promotional intent." Since you represent the company which created this software, you would be considered to have a conflict of interest and thus the article was perceived as promotional. I would not rule out the possibility that this software may in fact be notable enough to warrant an article, but it looks to me as though there were only two independent reliable sources discussing the software cited in the article before it was deleted. If a Wikipedian who did not have a financial interest in this software wanted more advice about how to re-create an article about WebDrive, I could probably help them, but I don't think there is a way that you yourself can get around the conflict of interest issues. Sorry about that. If you believe my closing the Articles for Deletion discussion was wrong because it was only 2 to 0, you are free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, but the participants there may note your conflict of interest and take that as a negative against you there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was a contributor to the article as it was originally just a stub and was being pulled in to things like FB and other external sources. So we added detail to help it be more informative and based that structure on other software products in the FTP clients category. Unfortunately as is the case with most software, it’s difficult to find external resources to provide accurate vital details on the proprietary technology. I’ll work on tracking down a Wikipedian with no COI willing to start a new article. If they need help, I’ll have them contact you. Thanks! MisterYan (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the Celebrate the Century page - regarding

Regarding the Celebrate the Century page deletion, only two delete requests were made not including the person who nominated it and one keep. Two relists for consensus did not result in any replies. A similar article Nature of America which too was listed for deletion at the same time for the same reasons had one delete and no keeps, yet that article was kept and not deleted. I feel that Celebrate the Century should have been kept. Regardless of the not notable clause it is an article that is presented for anyone looking for information on it. Is this a lost cause or are there any chances of it being reinstated. Likewise there are two other similar articles (which I mentioned in the deletion page) that very strongly resemble the conditions for delete ie not notable, yet these two were not nominated for deletion.--PremKudvaTalk 04:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Leave your reply here since I will be watching it.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiphop Tamizha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

your opinion please...

Greetings! While we have disagreed on some issues I have found you to be among the very most fair-minded contributors. Since I think you have expressed sensible opinions on making use of sub-pages in user-space before could you take a look at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Wittes breakdown, where another contributor has voiced concerns over User:Geo Swan/Wittes_breakdown. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You can delete !

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding about how user pages work in other languages.--Le Passant (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suphot Dhirakaosal

How was this no consensus? LibStar (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Suphot Dhirakaosal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Suphot Dhirakaosal. 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. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks much for deleting that redirect, can you delete User:Cirt/Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World as well? — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at Johnmperry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Non-admin closures

I see you deleted Historically Roman Catholic nations following a non-admin closure at AfD. I've just reverted the close at Roman Catholic teachings on pacifism and Just War on the grounds that non-admins aren't supposed to close things they can't action the result of (and then typed a long explanation and found your deletion of the other one). As I've never come across a non-admin closing as Delete before (and then putting a speedy on the article), what is the accepted procedure? The rule is No. Both articles are definitely Delete cases - but can non-admins close as Delete? Peridon (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Under WP:NACD, a non-admin should not close an AfD as "delete". On the other hand, at least the AfD discussion was unanimously for deletion. (Before I deleted the page, I noticed the AfD had been unanimously for deletion, but I didn't think about the fact that a non-admin had closed the discussion.) So despite the procedural error, at least the result was correct. You were correct to call the guideline to the non-admin closer's attention but I don't think any other action is needed now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Masculinity Hard and Soft

I recently was working on a school project and posted my unfinished product on Wikipedia. I have now posted a more polished product on the talk page of Masculinity Hard and Soft. Could you take a look at it and see if it is ready to be posted as an article now? Thank you.Cjbristow(talk

  • (Referring to User:Cjbristow/Masculinity hard and soft.) I don't think this article is ready to go to the main article space yet. There are a number of grammatical errors, and some topics are introduced without proper context (such as the Swedish ice cream ad and the book A Photo History, The War in Iraq). Also, one sentence says, "We teach men how to be manly from an early age laying the groundwork for military service as a young adult." Who is "we" in this sentence? (See MOS:FIRSTPERSON.) The article still seems to me to be more like an essay of personal opinion rather than an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you would continue engage in the discussion about the speedy deletion of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur. I posted a response to some of the comments and am interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,Blitzlaw (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:

This user is a cross-wiki, and block in the es.Wikipedia. Good night! — ♫♫ Leitoxx   The Police ♪♪ — 04:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't understand your point. Regardless of whether the user was blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia, I still don't see any evidence that the user requested deletion of their user page in the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metropolitan90/Archive_22&oldid=1190247658"