User talk:Missvain/Archive 51
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Missvain. 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. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Amazing contributions! Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC) |
- Wow, thank YOU Nirvanaoreilly! I am honored and humbled. I also appreciate your contributions. I also can't wait to watch the inauguration. Justice, democracy, love and inclusivity won! Missvain (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are so awesome, Missvain! We're only two months away!! Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, thank YOU Nirvanaoreilly! I am honored and humbled. I also appreciate your contributions. I also can't wait to watch the inauguration. Justice, democracy, love and inclusivity won! Missvain (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Joe Neguse
- added a link pointing to Equality Act
- Scott Peters (politician)
- added a link pointing to Nuclear energy
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for offending you
I wanted to say sorry for offering you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidenism. I wasn't meaning to offend any by the comment I made and I am truly sorry. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi Missvain, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
December with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Kate Bedingfield
Hi - please remember to update infobox to future officeholder which adds the necessary *designate. Thanks Cliffmore (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Shakulu sons
This draft was resubmitted without any improvement after a quite long discussion with the result that the article should be draftified so frat could work on it. I quote directly from the draft: his death was divided into two as Shahkulu gentlemen, Salmas and Somay, and some of them were linked to the Ottoman Empire. His death was divided into two as Shakulu gentlemen called as and wikilinked to geographical regions? at the end of the phrase two becomes some... Thats a low bar for the AfC Project. Further on, the first phrase doesn't even end, spans probably over three phrases and is just confusing. I was heavily involved in the improvement of the article but had to give up as I couldn't with certainty source what I wrote. Much of the article is just what I assumed at the time while copyediting in the Wikipedia main space, to give the article at least a slight sense. It is still not clarified what the Shakulu sons actually describe. Sons, a Dynasty or a Principality? This article can be wikilinked into other articles as well and wouldn't be of an improvement for the project as whole.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to nominate it for deletion again if you wish! I felt that it passed muster and I can only assume good faith about the sources provided. Besides, many sources about the subject are likely in Arabic. I have no emotional connection to the article. I don't judge on what can improve the overall Wikipedia project or not - I could care less about every Pokemon character but most of them have Wikipedia articles. I don't think that really helps the project, but, it's not my place to gauge that - it's up to the community as a whole and all it takes is one person in the world to Google a subject, click on a Wikipedia, and read it - that means it is of value to the project. And to me, learning about former settlements and sultanates is interesting and helps represent a culture and people who have had rather poor representation on English Wikipedia as a whole. But, again, feel free to nominate it for deletion, again, if you see fit and don't feel there is room for improvement (translation and language can always be improved, however, so that is not a valid reason for nominating for deletion). I also suggest perhaps reaching out to our fellow volunteers at WikiProject Iran, they might be able to help. Have a great day and thanks for your contributions! Missvain (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Missvain, I've improved several of Frats articles and had several discussions with him, before having nominated only this one for deletion. Most were of a similar grammar like this one. He several times deleted my invisible comments and wouldn't answer to the concerns I raised. So please understand my eagerness. Your wikilink to Shakulu! maybe brought us a solution. I found a Shakulu rebellion (sadly from before the existence of the principality) and asked the creator of this article for help. Maybe it works. I also copy edited the article to a somehow understandable version.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, just read your user page. Thank you for all you did for Wikipedia. I guess you are one of the reasons, many of us are encouraged to be here. I tried to join the Wikipedia Switzerland campaign, but I wasn't patient enough to understand how this works and today ends the Switzerland campaign. I'll try now to enter the Women in Red, as I have created several articles about female victims, Ministers and Judges.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Missvain, I've improved several of Frats articles and had several discussions with him, before having nominated only this one for deletion. Most were of a similar grammar like this one. He several times deleted my invisible comments and wouldn't answer to the concerns I raised. So please understand my eagerness. Your wikilink to Shakulu! maybe brought us a solution. I found a Shakulu rebellion (sadly from before the existence of the principality) and asked the creator of this article for help. Maybe it works. I also copy edited the article to a somehow understandable version.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I left a message on the talk page of an article here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lauren_Boebert#Political_Party_Affiliation. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to reach out to you or not. Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks! Cortex21 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I responded there! Missvain (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Cortex21 (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I responded there! Missvain (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall Redirect
Hi, I noticed you deleted List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall per my nomination at afd. I was just wondering if it ould be appropriate to recreate the page as a redirect to Colston Hall. Cheers –DMartin 05:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good evening User:dmartin969! I think that's a great idea. If you need my help, let me know.
Missvain (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good evening User:dmartin969! I think that's a great idea. If you need my help, let me know.
Closure at this AfD
Hi Missvain, I noticed you closed this AfD discussion as an expired PROD which I feel is incorrect. Since you linked WP:NOQUORUM while closing the AfD which says "If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion" - which I think means to say that an AfD may be closed as soft deleted "if there is no comment opposing deletion" - but there is explicitly one such comment available where an editor has voted for Keep, and one vote for Weak Keep, and thus I would regard this closure as inappropriate. NOQUORUM doesn't apply here. Please reconsider your action or let me know if I understood the NQUORUM thing wrong? ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I soft deleted it so people can recreate it when it's solid that they pass notability guidelines. If you want me to reopened it and let it run it's course, again, let me know. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would appreciate because there is nothing like "soft deletion" there. If it is just deleted per AfD discussion, people can still recreate it when it's solid that they pass notability guidelines and previous deletion via AfD won't be a barrier. This AfD should get one more relist. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
Women in Red Women in Asia contest |
| Missvain Thank you for your additions in November 2020 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
Shawn Occeus AfD
I'm not bright enough to understand your close here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- You know what, I'm not either now that I look at it. That's what I get for doing AfD without enough caffiene. I've undeleted, and reopened it. I'm not going to mess with it.
Missvain (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, been there, done that! All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- You know what, I'm not either now that I look at it. That's what I get for doing AfD without enough caffiene. I've undeleted, and reopened it. I'm not going to mess with it.
Toba Capital
Hi Missvain - I’m curious how you based your delete decision for Toba Capital on the arguments in the AfD discussion. There was the nomination, two keeps, and two deletes, but plenty of sources demonstrating notability. It clearly passes WP:GNG as the largest venture capital firm in Orange County, CA, and at worst should have been a no consensus. I worry you’re only going to encourage the deletionists, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good morning User:Timtempleton! Clearly you are unfamiliar with my work if you are worried about me "encouraging" deletionists! Ha!!
Hehehe... - Anyway, AfD isn't a vote, so two deletes and two keeps doesn't mean much to me, it's the arguments and the discussions which build consensus. Actually, it's five deletes and three keeps. So, if voting consensus-style is your thing then deletes won. Second, I know you started the article and I know, from my own experience, how aggravating it is when an article I have created was deleted. It's so disappointing and for me, at times, demoralizing.
- I agree with User:HighKing regarding their recognizing of cherry picking bits out of sources. I agree with User:TastyPoutine suggesting that the corporation just be merged into Vinny Smith's article. I also agree with TastyPoutine and User:Wikimandia - largest in the county, etc, doesn't mean anything regarding notability and inclusion in the encyclopedia, OC or not. User:Smallbones is quite knowledgeable and experienced editor wise, and I trust his analysis regarding VC's and corporations. While I don't alway agree with him, we have worked together in person at edit-a-thons and I have come to respect and trust his opinion and knowledge. When folks get frustrated with my decisions (and honestly, at this point, I'm one of less than a handful of admins who seems to venture into AfD both here and on Commons anymore, I guess it's my charitable heart that feels for backlogs! Or maybe it's just OCD
) I always end up suggesting the same thing: Feel free to take it to deletion review if my respond isn't sufficient. I have no emotional connection to the subject matter. If the article was only reviewed one or two times with a relisting I'd suggest reopening it, but, it's been relisted three times already and third time is the charm, as User:Spartaz wrote when they relisted it. - Finally, a piece of unsolicited feedback: I beg you to try to avoid using "deletionist" and "inclusionist" in conversations on Wikipedia and its sister projects. It's not very friendly and does not assume good faith. While I don't expect everyone to stop using Wikipedia tropes to call out other editors, I was just disappointed to see you, a veteran editor of 10+ years, tossing around that language here, on my talk page, and in the deletion discussion. I excuse myself from conversations involving that type of language anymore, as you can probably tell by the Drama Llama on my talk page above! Ha! It only makes things more heated and less collaborative and frankly life is too short! But, you aren't here to have me nag...
Anyway...Thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain your thought process. You may not be aware of the context of recent deletion nominations. Scope creep started targeting my articles and nominated three of them in rapid succession, including one on Thanksgiving, which put a major damper on my day. You can see his AFD stats and his voting history [[1]] and I can’t come up with any other word for never once voting keep than deletionist. But thank you also for your efforts to keep things civil. It’s just hard for me now that my first article has been deleted after 10 years, and I know based on a reading of the sourcing that the decision was incorrect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ah..I'm sorry you're experiencing that and I appreciate you sharing and being vulnerable about it to me, it's not easy for many Wikipedians! Last year I had an editor doing the same thing to me - going through and PRODing articles of mine just to be an asshole.
Turns out his targeting of me was part of a series of attacks he was making on various long-time editors. He was also one. It went to ArbCom and he was sanctioned. I'm not on ArbCom (thank goodness, I don't know how they do it!) but, if you are concerned, I suggest seeking a moderator to perhaps work it out or...ending it. I won't be offended if you take it to deletion discussion, I really won't. Be sure to take a break from the wiki and take care of yourself, too! Missvain (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Timtempleton (talk · contribs). Please revise your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination) from "delete" to "no consensus". There were two "delete" participants in the AfD who were not blocked for sockpuppetry: Scope creep and HighKing. (Blacklistedeffort was blocked for sockpuppetry.) There were two "keep" participants in the AfD: Timtempleton and Cunard. There was no consensus among these four participants about whether the sources established notability so a "delete" close does not accurately represent the consensus.
Your 16:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC) post references comments from TastyPoutine, Wikimandia, and Smallbones and a third relist by Spartaz, but none of those editors edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination). You are referring to the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital, which an admin correctly closed as "no consensus" on 16 August 2018. As the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination), you should be relying on only comments from that AfD instead of on a previous AfD that another admin closed as "no consensus".
- I agree with Timtempleton (talk · contribs). Please revise your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination) from "delete" to "no consensus". There were two "delete" participants in the AfD who were not blocked for sockpuppetry: Scope creep and HighKing. (Blacklistedeffort was blocked for sockpuppetry.) There were two "keep" participants in the AfD: Timtempleton and Cunard. There was no consensus among these four participants about whether the sources established notability so a "delete" close does not accurately represent the consensus.
- Ah..I'm sorry you're experiencing that and I appreciate you sharing and being vulnerable about it to me, it's not easy for many Wikipedians! Last year I had an editor doing the same thing to me - going through and PRODing articles of mine just to be an asshole.
- Thank you for taking the time to explain your thought process. You may not be aware of the context of recent deletion nominations. Scope creep started targeting my articles and nominated three of them in rapid succession, including one on Thanksgiving, which put a major damper on my day. You can see his AFD stats and his voting history [[1]] and I can’t come up with any other word for never once voting keep than deletionist. But thank you also for your efforts to keep things civil. It’s just hard for me now that my first article has been deleted after 10 years, and I know based on a reading of the sourcing that the decision was incorrect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You know, the reason i (and presumably also some others) voted for "soft redirect" in that AFD was because we wanted to maintain the edit history for future attribution after copying to Wikibooks. That can't be done if you just delete the article outright. In any case, i've created the redirect as proposed. Hopefully you can restore the edit history if possible. Koopinator (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good morning! Thanks for coming by. How about I just undelete the article for now and you can make use of it however you wish. Redirect, merge, whatever away. Happy holidays and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good morning! Thanks for coming by. How about I just undelete the article for now and you can make use of it however you wish. Redirect, merge, whatever away. Happy holidays and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Please update the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara-Tur
From keep to merge. There is clearly no consensus for keeping this, and per your own closing summary, the consensus is for a merge. A closure as keep also improperly skews AfD statistics (as merge is not keep). TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus!!! Wow, it's been a LONG time. It's great to hear from you, even if it's a not so cheery request. I'm happy to fix that for you. No problem. Happy holidays!!!!!! Missvain (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan J. Cole
In relation to your recent close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan J. Cole I would like to contrast your close with the recent close here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (2nd nomination) where the closer stated "WP:SOLDIER is in fact an essay, which means it does not represent a community-wide consensus, and accordingly, the two "keep" opinions based on it can't be given much weight." regards Mztourist (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi! This AfD was closed as soft delete (i.e., treat as an expired PROD) but it is ineligible for soft delete (and PROD) because it has been previously nominated for deletion. Would you be able to either relist it or close as "delete"? czar 07:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Done! Missvain (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Missvain: Why was this closed as delete and then reopened? scope_creepTalk 19:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see there has been a conversation with Tim and Cunard that I as nominator wasn't included in. Is this some kind of whitewash? scope_creepTalk 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! I archived it a conversation after I reopened the nomination and relisted it. I closed it mistakenly and Tim and I had a discussion about the wrong nomination (and I feel like an idiot..LOL). It was a lapse in judgement on my end. No big deal. Missvain (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well that is thing. It is a big deal. You had a back room conversation without inviting everybody involved, that is more than a lapse of judgement, then compounded your mistake without consulting us. I plan to take this further. scope_creepTalk 20:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- My sincerest apologies. I was never intending anything malicious. Missvain (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well that is thing. It is a big deal. You had a back room conversation without inviting everybody involved, that is more than a lapse of judgement, then compounded your mistake without consulting us. I plan to take this further. scope_creepTalk 20:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! I archived it a conversation after I reopened the nomination and relisted it. I closed it mistakenly and Tim and I had a discussion about the wrong nomination (and I feel like an idiot..LOL). It was a lapse in judgement on my end. No big deal.
- I see there has been a conversation with Tim and Cunard that I as nominator wasn't included in. Is this some kind of whitewash? scope_creepTalk 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Wiley
Would you consider actioning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wiley? There is consensus to delete as a hoax, but no admin to do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for letting me know Hawkeye7! Missvain (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! Take care! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
List of Left-Handers
Hi Missvain!
I'm the original creator of the List of people who are left-handed. Thank you for euthanizing the discussion around that article. I'm greatly disappointed that the article had to be deleted but I would still like to continue with the project, working around the qualms the RfD brought up. I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with its source so I could create a list of lists page with the sublists referenced by the forum?
Thanks so much,
JustinMal1 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi JustinMal1 - Sorry you had to experience that! I am sure it was tough. I've been there, trust me! Anyway, to make it easier, I userfied it for you here. There are so many sources, etc, so I figured that is easier then you can also use some of the code. Thanks for your contributions and understanding! Missvain (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I came here on a similar mission. I am not content with the close as it seems clear that Missvain expects that further development will be done and so the page should not actually be deleted but just be restructured instead, per alternatives to deletion. But, as JustinMal1 has the ball, I'll let him run with it for now and help out, as needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew - Let me know how I can help or assist. It seemed redirect or merging might be an option and yes, it sounds like JustinMal1 has an idea or two. Thanks to both of you for assuming good faith and your valuable contributions - no matter if you're right handed, left handed, or ambidextrous! Missvain (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Missvain! I definitely have some ideas! I'd appreciate any help you can offer, Andrew, let's hash out ideas in the userfied page's talk page. JustinMal1 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew - Let me know how I can help or assist. It seemed redirect or merging might be an option and yes, it sounds like JustinMal1 has an idea or two. Thanks to both of you for assuming good faith and your valuable contributions - no matter if you're right handed, left handed, or ambidextrous!
Hi, could you please have another look at this AFD that you closed? There are 2 argued "keep" !votes and the nom has indicated that they'd like to withdraw the nomination. There are no other !votes, so I'm surprised that you relisted this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Randykitty - Done Can you please do me a favor and respond to the nominator about their question? I was really hoping someone related to the discussion could provide some guidance, as they are a newer editor and are looking for guidance. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you please userfy the page (with history) of this article for me? Thank you Chubbles (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Chubbles! Done You can find it here: User:Chubbles/Tiffany Houghton. Missvain (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Chubbles (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- One more note - The AfD noted that this version was kept at a previous AfD due to sufficient sources to pass GNG, and most of the delete !votes in the 2nd AfD focused on the promotional content, rather than the availability of sources. If I restore the old version of the page to the fully-sourced stub, do you have an objection? Chubbles (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Chubbles - I don't! I trust you. Feel free to link to this discussion on the talk page, if needed. Let me know if you need a second set of eyes, too. Missvain (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- OK thanks - if you are able to restore the talk page and oldafd notices as well, that'd be swell. Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Chubbles - I don't! I trust you. Feel free to link to this discussion on the talk page, if needed. Let me know if you need a second set of eyes, too. Missvain (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Early AfD closures
Hi, thanks for your admin work closing AfDs—nice to see them timely processed. :) Wanted to leave a quick note that it looks like a bunch were closed a bit too early, i.e., running closer to six days than the full seven days. I don't know if any of those are controversial enough to warrant undoing but at least wanted to note for the future. czar 08:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I came here to say pretty much the same thing as Czar-- The work you're doing is great, but maybe just be a bit more careful that they've actually run the full seven days going forward. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks you two. I am aware, actually. I'll let them go longer - it's generally well past the seven days when I start processing on my end, even on my universal clock. I've been doing it for years like that, but, looks like people are finally noticing.
I'll be more diligent . I appreciate the feedback. Missvain (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks you two. I am aware, actually. I'll let them go longer - it's generally well past the seven days when I start processing on my end, even on my universal clock. I've been doing it for years like that, but, looks like people are finally noticing.
Ishan Pandita
Hi Missvain! Hope all is well. If you don't mind, it might be worth having a look at Ishan Pandita's AfD again. Since relisting, the situation has changed somewhat so there is now only one delete vote and 10 keep votes. Not sure if it might be worth closing? :) Spiderone 10:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the ping! Missvain (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2020
| ||||||
Deletion of Derry list of tallest buildings and structures
Two points, First, reason for deletion not given as far as I can see? Second can I access the source code of the deleted article and add it to the Derry Wikipedia page? I asked for this when the page was considered for deletion in my defence of it. It took 15 hrs to make and I’m not free to rewrite it all for a good while. Petaaa95 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Error with XFDCloser
Dear Missvain, I noticed that you accidently replaced the deletion discussion of Thinkmarkets with a merge template even though the deletion discussion was not finished yet. Additionally I believe you made an error in putting a "Merge to Wyze Labs" tag on the page, ast the two are completely unrelated. This came at a time when you closed the List of Wyze products as merge, some kind of bug got them mixed up. I have fixed the error, but this was very confusing. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 04:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Article missed in Afd closure
Please have a look on Sardi Khola Hydropower Station. Yeti Dai (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Nitpicky copyright question
Thanks for uploading that video of Rochelle Walensky and Vivek Murthy! I'm curious: are we certain it's in the PD? Seems a fair assumption, but I have no idea whether employees of the Biden transition are officially US federal government employees or … something else. Given all the brouhaha about Emily W. Murphy's belated ascertainment of victory, with the government funding that goes with it, it seems reasonable that people making the video would be on the federal payroll, but it's hard to tell. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's public domain. All of the transitional content is now .gov, including their social media accounts, after the letter was signed. This is just the first time the transition has been on social media, so I understand the concern. We are only uploading and using content that was published after Murphy ascertained the election. Missvain (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Need help with an article
I want to create the page; Political organization of the Ashanti Empire . My only question is that can I use sources from SHS text books such as [this one] ?. The book link I just sent contains footnotes or references to history books on the Ashanti Empire such as famous works by Davidson Basile and Shillington. My main question is that will it be okay if my sources are approved SHS text books? Kwesi Yema (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like that is an OK source to me! A reliable secondary source. A good place to get help with questions like this and recieve more detailed, in-depth support and guidance is WP:Teahouse. Happy holidays and happy editing! Missvain (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Oggar
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oggar. 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Geography AFD relists
I'm not convinced some of these AFDs on geographic places where there's a small number of comments really need the relist, especially stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Fork, Kentucky where it would be prod eligible, and has been open for two weeks with nobody supporting anything other than deletion. WP:NOQUORUM is a thing. There's probably hundreds of mass-created stubs for non-notable place names in Kentucky and California, and if nobody's opposing deletion after a week, it's probably uncontroversial deletion. I'm not an admin though, and maybe there's something I'm missing. Do whatever with these you see best. Hog Farm Bacon 18:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
William M. John
I don't like to interfere, but are you sure this was what you meant to do? Deb (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- +1 - I think the consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William M. John was pretty strongly in favour of keep. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I thought, to be honest, I was increasingly onto a loser here. A relist? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Ack! That was a slip. That's what I get for doing AfD without a second cup of tea. Fixing. Sorry everyone! Missvain (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Glad to see the article back. Many thanks! ThrillShow (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Happens to the best of us! :-))) Deb (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
"Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
"Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Orbs (band)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Orbs (band). 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
| File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas Missvain |
|
Hi Missvain, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Deleted article
Hey so i saw you deleted penny O'Brien and that's completely understandable by me! I just want to ask you what did ye mean by redirect it? :) Photos of rdr2 (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Missvain, I was asked about this yesterday on my Talk page here, before you relisted it. Great minds think alike! 
— JGHowes talk 14:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbs (band)
Hello Missvain. How did you arrive at "redirect" for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbs (band)? Between all of the articles, there is plenty of information about the band, and what is to come of the album page? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It looks like out of 3 people who participated (nom and 2 comments) you were the only vying for a keep. Killiondude (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. Consensus. Feel free to bring it to WP:DR if needed. I'm not personally connected to the article and the consensus from interested parties was redirect. Feel free to change the redirect, too, with proper discussion (wherever that might be). Missvain (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I asked you to please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. Consensus. Feel free to bring it to WP:DR if needed. I'm not personally connected to the article and the consensus from interested parties was redirect. Feel free to change the redirect, too, with proper discussion (wherever that might be). Missvain (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Need Help After John Robles Deleted
As the former lead announcer with the Voice of Russia World Service and the first and only person with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation, years before Snowden and Assange, it is a crime against any proper recording of history to delete this person's page. IF WikiPedia really is a real source for information deleting such pages because of the reviewers political bias or because the reviewer does not "like" the person is an egregious crime and dirties the reputation of WikiPedia. John was also a WikiLeaks media associate and although you may not have hear about him is famous in Russia and certain geopolitical circles. Revising history and deleting people someone wants to be "unpopular" is not what WikiPedia is about. As you are person who closed the discussion, which was not really a "discussion" as no opposing views were given audience, I have written to you per WikiPedia's instructions. John is currently and has been the ONLY American with asylum in the Russian Federation and perhaps the world. SOmeone said that John is unknown however he is quite famous in the Russian Federation and frequently appears on television as an expert on geopolitical issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs)
- <tps> It's generally not a good idea to ask for undeletion by making a personal attack on the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
NO attack intended whatsoever. Sorry just stating the facts as we see them. Thanks and cheers.
- @Interceptor369: - I can't assist you further at this time. You can take your complaint about the article being deleted to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
We means my readers, followers, friends and supporters for whom I am writing. You have a great holiday too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, it's against Wikipedia policy to have multiple people using a Wikipedia account. (In reference to your "as we see them.") Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts. Missvain (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Monday Morning close
Hi Missvain! I just noticed your close at the Monday Morning deletion discussion. Both of the delete !votes seemed to take no issue with When a pen stirs up a campus from The Hindu as a GNG-qualifier but challenged the article from The New Indian Express on SIGCOV grounds. I think that that is a pretty weak argument, as the Express spends several paragraphs directly discussing Monday Morning. There may have been some confusion, as the site confusingly splits its articles into multiple pages and the relevant coverage is on page 3, but it's there and is substantially more than just a paragraph. The final tally was 2 keep vs. 2 delete, and I presume you gave some extra weight to the delete !votes because they came later, but given the above, I was wondering if you would be willing to reassess the consensus at the discussion. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Here is what I will do for you: I'll undelete and let the discussion run another week. We can continue it for up to two more weeks maximum (two more cycles) before a decision will be made or no consensus by the deciding admin. That also means I will recuse myself from participating as a closing admin. Missvain (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good; thank you! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Here is what I will do for you: I'll undelete and let the discussion run another week. We can continue it for up to two more weeks maximum (two more cycles) before a decision will be made or no consensus by the deciding admin. That also means I will recuse myself from participating as a closing admin. Missvain (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Scott Ivie
Hello, Missvain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scott Ivie".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheaper by the Dozen (2022 film)
Hi. I know you closed this AfD a few days ago, but can you please change Draft to Draftify? It currently does not log into my AfD stats properly. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Foxnpichu: Done (I think!) Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's fixed! Thank you! Foxnpichu (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Foxnpichu:
Would you be willing to relist this discussion for another week? I don't think "keep" is an accurate assessment of its consensus. czar 16:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done - I also will recuse myself from closing it in future. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, thanks for all you do for Wikipedia Czar!
For Future Reference
Hello Missvain. I wanted to let you know for any future encounters that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events doesn't actually class articles since the WikiProject only works with them for about a week. Thank you for doing the classes on all the WikiProjects. A lot of people aren't aware of that, so I just try to help spread that info around. Thank you, have a wonderful day....And Merry Christmas! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
A New Year With Women in Red!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
AfD Closures
I saw this morning that there were over 100 AfDs open so I thought "at some point today I should help pitch in there". When I just went to do so now I see that over 46 minutes you closed an astounding number of AfDs. This includes 6 in 1 minute that I observed when trying to figure out how the queue dropped so quickly [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Can I ask how it was that you were able to close so many so quickly? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I use Wikipedia:XFDcloser. Missvain (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- So do I. It just seems like a lot of reading. I counted 560 or so words across those six discussions just in comments, not counting signatures, deletion sorting, and the like) and ancillary decision making (i.e. when the script flags an entry in a list and you have to figure out if a redlink is appropriate for that list or not). Or to take another example, I get just over 1400 words across the 6 closes you did a couple minutes after that [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], assuming you didn't read any of the sourcing provided by Cunard. According to our article on Speed reading that is a possible rate (ignoring the other limiting factors with this task, such as page load, script speed, etc) but would happen with some drop-off in comprehension. In looking over this set I see some actions I agree with, others I disagree with but seem to be in the normal range of AfD closes, and 1 or 2 that I disagree with. My concern is whether you are taking a quantity over quality approach in closing these discussions and that concern is magnified by the sheer number of closes done today (and perhaps in previous days - I haven't looked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I am a speed reader (no joke, I was tested for it when I was child, but it's been decades since I was re-tested). Anyway, I read all of the deletion discussions as they are ongoing. Days before. I'm already reading discussions for today, for example. So, I'm generally familiar with the discussions before they are closed. Anyway, I never take it personal if people challenge my closures. Also, it's not my job to read all the sources presented by every person. IMHO, it's the commenters jobs to make the case as to why an article should be deleted or be kept and to convince me (and other reviewers). Judge and jury versus the lawyers. But, every reviewer goes about things differently (and I know a few who agree with my assessment on the process . Frankly, I'm one of the few people who has been regularly reviewing AfD lately. Perhaps if more people were involved or engaged, and there really aren't many (honestly the same people comment on AfDs most of the time), perhaps outcomes would be different. Have a good New Year! Missvain (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree it's not your job to read all the sources which is why I excluded that from the counts I gave above. FWIW, when I'm closing I don't see it as my job to be convinced of anything. I am merely trying to reflect the consensus arrived at by the participants of the discussion. Your explanation of having read the AfDs in advance is actually the answer to my original question. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- One more thought while you're temporarily on my watchlist (I'm loving the new expiring feature): I was surprised, at first, to see two different AfD related requests after mine when there had only been 1 other one on this page given that you had a two week archive time according to the archive box. It seems you've decreased your archive time to 51 hours - you might want to update that in the archive box. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree it's not your job to read all the sources which is why I excluded that from the counts I gave above. FWIW, when I'm closing I don't see it as my job to be convinced of anything. I am merely trying to reflect the consensus arrived at by the participants of the discussion. Your explanation of having read the AfDs in advance is actually the answer to my original question. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I am a speed reader (no joke, I was tested for it when I was child, but it's been decades since I was re-tested). Anyway, I read all of the deletion discussions as they are ongoing. Days before. I'm already reading discussions for today, for example. So, I'm generally familiar with the discussions before they are closed. Anyway, I never take it personal if people challenge my closures. Also, it's not my job to read all the sources presented by every person. IMHO, it's the commenters jobs to make the case as to why an article should be deleted or be kept and to convince me (and other reviewers). Judge and jury versus the lawyers. But, every reviewer goes about things differently (and I know a few who agree with my assessment on the process
- So do I. It just seems like a lot of reading. I counted 560 or so words across those six discussions just in comments, not counting signatures, deletion sorting, and the like) and ancillary decision making (i.e. when the script flags an entry in a list and you have to figure out if a redlink is appropriate for that list or not). Or to take another example, I get just over 1400 words across the 6 closes you did a couple minutes after that [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], assuming you didn't read any of the sourcing provided by Cunard. According to our article on Speed reading that is a possible rate (ignoring the other limiting factors with this task, such as page load, script speed, etc) but would happen with some drop-off in comprehension. In looking over this set I see some actions I agree with, others I disagree with but seem to be in the normal range of AfD closes, and 1 or 2 that I disagree with. My concern is whether you are taking a quantity over quality approach in closing these discussions and that concern is magnified by the sheer number of closes done today (and perhaps in previous days - I haven't looked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This was incorrect on two counts. One, the AFD ended as keep. Two, if it hadn't, it shouldn't be merged into Zico, but into Neymar. I'm not sure using tools which create such errors is a good idea. Perhaps more haste, less speed required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Accidents happen. Since some of the batch nominated articles were closed kept/merge/etc it all ended up as a hot mess. Some of them were nominated in the batch with this article and then they were also nominated as individual entires and it screwed things up. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- And was this deliberate? A keep _and_ a merge added to the talk page as an outcome on one single AFD? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, someone batch nominated a bunch of these football lists and then also nominated them as individual entries and it fucked up the closure. I would never intentionally do that. Missvain (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- And this? Merging to Zico (again)? I suggest you go back over all your masses of rapid edits and fix all these issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It literally takes one minute to fix. It's not a big deal. Happy New Year! Missvain (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good to hear, there appears to be half a dozen or so more to fix. More haste, less speed!! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It literally takes one minute to fix. It's not a big deal. Happy New Year! Missvain (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- And this? Merging to Zico (again)? I suggest you go back over all your masses of rapid edits and fix all these issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, someone batch nominated a bunch of these football lists and then also nominated them as individual entries and it fucked up the closure. I would never intentionally do that. Missvain (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- And was this deliberate? A keep _and_ a merge added to the talk page as an outcome on one single AFD? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd let this run it's course. None of the keep !votes (most of which were canvassed from the Wikipedia Rescue Squadron) did not address the depth of coverage in the current sourcing. Thanks, regardless of your decision to reopen or not. Onel5969 TT me 23:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Onel5969:, no problem, I'll reopen. Thanks for the heads up on the canvassing - I appreciate it. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Missvain, I'd like to be clear, I don't think that WRS is ALWAYS canvassing, sometimes they do good work. But mostly it's simply a way to get folks to drive by and cast !votes, without making any improvements or modifications on the substandard articles. Even though in their code of conduct, it explicitly talks against doing just that. Thanks again. Onel5969 TT me 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- There have been many many community discussions if ARS is a canvassing and there is no consensus for that, if it was it would be shut down. To be canvassing the OP would have to actually canvassed eg. "please go here and vote Keep". Many ARS members are known to vote Delete at time. And most don't vote at all most of the time. When you look at the stats, it is not a canvassing board. As for drive-by voting, I recognize two participants Dream Focus and myself, and we both worked to improve the article. We put our time and effort into it. This is not drive by voting behavior. So please.. do not throw these bad terms around they are wrong and hurtful to people making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. -- GreenC 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- GreenC saw the ARS posting asking for helping finding sources, and restored the article, so that is 1. User:Dream Focus is an ARS regular and may or may not have seen it there, so that is 1 1/2. User:DocFreeman24 was notified about the AFD by Onel on his talk page. As to whether User:Zxcvbnm or User:Phediuk saw it at ARS and came to the AFD that way, I have no idea, but I doubt it. So that does not appear to be "most" of them coming from ARS to vote. 2601:249:8B80:4050:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was making edits to the article prior to the existence of the AfD. I did learn about it from ARS, but there was no AfD at the time. I was working to improve the article to prevent an AfD. -- GreenC 02:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't even know what "WRS" is. I voted to keep because the article was well-sourced. Phediuk (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't follow the Article Rescue Squadron at all nor am I a member, all my votes are from browsing the AfD categories, such as the video games category. I don't have strong opinions on the article but the accusation the votes were canvassed is indubitably false. I counted 3 entire reviews of the game from magazines, which if true would fulfill GNG. It's fairly hard to check whether coverage is substantial due to its print nature though, but there was no counter-evidence either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, most of the people I saw participating were pretty regular VG wikiproject contributors, so it wasn't too surprising to me to see them there. Personally, I did not witness any "canvassing" as has been alleged. And frankly, this didn't seem like a particularly close call to me relative to the vast majority of video game articles.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Missvain, I'd like to be clear, I don't think that WRS is ALWAYS canvassing, sometimes they do good work. But mostly it's simply a way to get folks to drive by and cast !votes, without making any improvements or modifications on the substandard articles. Even though in their code of conduct, it explicitly talks against doing just that. Thanks again. Onel5969 TT me 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Missvain,
I don't think I'm a "certain someone" but I'd like for this AfD to run for 7 days. The reason is that several participants suggested content from the article could be incorporated into the Jared Kushner article and if the page is deleted, this is not going to happen. I think if the page creator knew that the article was facing certain deletion, he might move some of the content into that article instead of seeing all of his work get deleted. Please just consider this request. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC
Afd Closure of Dr Paras
Hello, I noticed you closed an afd discussion of a page I created that was nominated for deletion. The subject has significant coverages on reliable sources which I cited on the page. But my question is do you close afd discussions base on votes or notability. If it is base on notability why is the page notable.Barmitzg (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there @Barmitzg: I don't see any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a neutral manner presented in the deletion discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Paras. I just reviewed the sources in the article that was deleted and while they might be from reliable secondary sources, they do not represent the subject in a neutral manner. Promotional style content in newspapers and magazines do not establish notability. Feel free to bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Other editors will review your case and consider "undeleting" the article. Happy New Year! I hope you'll consider improving other Wikipedia articles! Missvain (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wish you the best, please how do you mean by they do not represent the subject in a neutral manner. How is the style of the content promotional, please explain to me, I want to learn. So that I can also be able to know the content that is written in promotional style. Barmitzg (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Early closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Perception of Jared Kushner
Greetings Missvain,
I'm definitely not here to give you any grief, but would you be amenable to re-opening that discussion and allow it to run its course? While I fully expect it to be deleted in the end, it would be worthwhile giving the article creator (or anyone else) a chance to make their case, as it hasn't even been open for 24 hours yet. The article has already been recreated (and someone has slapped a G4 on it), so clearly there are some dissenting opinions out there. I'd rather do this one by the book so as to not provide any ammunition for a potential DRV. Thank you! CThomas3 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just reopened it. You're surely not the one I'm worried about. Missvain (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Should there be an attempt to merge the old and new page histories? --Michael Greiner 00:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Michael Greiner: Yes, good idea. However, I always screw it up when I do it, whether using the admin tool or doing it manually. It overwhelms me, to be honest. If someone is able to do it, I'd be deeply appreciative. Sorry!!! Missvain (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like Liz merged the histories (thanks Liz!). All good here. --Michael Greiner 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you LIZ!!! Missvain (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like Liz merged the histories (thanks Liz!). All good here. --Michael Greiner 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Michael Greiner: Yes, good idea. However, I always screw it up when I do it, whether using the admin tool or doing it manually. It overwhelms me, to be honest. If someone is able to do it, I'd be deeply appreciative. Sorry!!!
- Should there be an attempt to merge the old and new page histories? --Michael Greiner 00:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Book vs TV serial
I am not sure how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India is related to Love island. Was it added in mistake? Walrus Ji (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, that was a copy and paste accident. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Missvain,😁 Lulz. 😂 Happy New year Walrus Ji (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously ready for 2021!! Missvain (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously ready for 2021!!
- Missvain,😁 Lulz. 😂 Happy New year Walrus Ji (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, that was a copy and paste accident. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)