Jump to content

User talk:Music1201/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Rollback granted

Hi Music1201. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Katietalk 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about deletion of Platinum Music Group

Why deletion of Platinum Educational Group? I have edited it more to eliminate insinuation of any advertisement. I am writing articles on many different companies that make differences in the EMS, Fire, Nursing, and other healthcare industries. My articles are NOT advertisements and are VERY objective. I am a new author, but I see NOTHING in my first article that violates any rules. I ask that this article be submitted on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum-jj (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Platinum-jj has been blocked indefinitely (block log) for having a promotional username and making promotional edits.  Rebbing  16:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please slow down

Music1201, you just reverted and warned a user for making an edit to a draft that they started. Why? I think perhaps you are reverting a bit too quickly. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Huggle crashed suddenly and that mightve happened accidentally. @Howicus:. — Music1201 talk 04:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense I suppose. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm 7Sidz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Kebab— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 7Sidz (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@7Sidz: Sorry, that was an accidental revert. — Music1201 talk 00:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines

I see that you nominated it for good article. I was working on it until after I recently crossed paths with a hostile editor.

I don't think the American Airlines article meets the good article criteria but I am willing to work with you to bring it up to standards. I find it hard to edit alone because if there is someone unreasonable, there is no consensus. In a heavily read article, there will be other reasonable editors but in an article that is not edited much, there will not be.

Would you like to work on the article with me. The anticipated workload is 20 minutes per week minimum and, for this article, at least 3 months. That is a big time commitment. If you say "no, thanks", I will eventually work on it, maybe in the 4th quarter 2016. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy: Yes, I would love to help bring this article up to standards.. — Music1201 talk 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

IACCS

I am writing about the IACCS page. I have redacted my remark about the licensing of active homosexual clergy in the IACCS. There is no value judgment attached to the observation that the IACCS permits active homosexuals to minister in its church. It is merely an objective statement of fact: whether you find this to be a good thing or a bad thing is up to you to decide, but most people seeking to learn about Anglican jurisdictions would want to know this information and so it is apposite to include it. The fact that this practice is contrary to the letter of their canons is a problem for them to resolve by changing their canons in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.207.93 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Careful with SPIs

Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm a clerk over at SPI. I see you're new around here; welcome!

I'd just like to ask you to be more careful with SPIs than you were at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PCHS-NJROTC. PCHS-NJROTC is a 8+ year editor in good standing, and being nominated for adminship by a trollsock (of someone else) is not grounds to file an SPI with them listed as suspected master. Thanks for your work, but do slow down. Wikipedia isn't WP:MMORPG. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Airlines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Airlines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Airlines

The article American Airlines you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:American Airlines for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Spinnin' Records: Pending Changes

Spinnin' Records is a pending changes protected article. Earlier, you accepted this edit which was made by an IP.

The edit should've not been accepted, 1st of all. The DJ doesn't seem to exist, 2nd. The edit was unsourced and had no verification. I don't understand any reason to accept this edit.

Pending Changes Reviewers are expected to use this tool correctly, any further misuse can result in no ownership of this user right. Thanks, - DragTails - 21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DragTails: I think you're mistaken here. While I agree that reverting the edit in question was appropriate, reviewers are not usually expected to enforce content policies. See WP:Reviewing § Acceptable edits ("It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice."); cf. WP:Reviewing § General criteria (reviewers are expected to reject BLP violations, vandalism and gibberish, obvious copyright violations, threats, personal attacks, and libel and "should take special consideration of the reason given for protection[] and attempt to uphold it").  Rebbing  22:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rebbing: Ok, thanks for clearing that up, but in messages admins always leave on talk pages when users get the tool. It says something about not using it correctly? I'm not exactly sure though. - DragTails - 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@DragTails: Not a problem. The notice you've seen is from {{Pending changes reviewer granted}} and has a link to the relevant guideline, which you may wish to read if you still believe Music used his reviewing right incorrectly in this case.  Rebbing  17:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Draft talk:Yalghaar

The RM you closed recently is being dicussed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your posts are Requests for Page Protection

I've declined these four. I am not sure how you define "persistent vandalism", but I do not see nearly enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: On the first history page of Skiing, I could only find 4 examples of constructive edits that were not reverted. For Shinto I found even less than that. Also very few were found for Sandra Bullock. — Music1201 talk 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I may be out of touch, but I'm not seeing protection warranted. We try hard not to protect articles. There may be few constructive edits at those pages, but before protecting, it is important to find plenty of recent unconstructive edits. Please feel free to consult another admin to be sure I am making the right call, though. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

COI tag on Wendy Chung

The following discussion 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.

Hi Music1201, I removed your COI tag on Wendy Chung as there has been no discussion on the article's talk page as per COI policy. COI is only used if there are "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality." Could you explain why you believe there is a conflict of interest? Howkafkaesque (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Howkafkaesque, The wording of the article makes it seem like a conflict of interest is involved. Also, there is no policy requiring a talk page discussion before the addition of the COI tag, it is a simple maintenance tag. — Music1201 talk 16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Music1201, please see Template:COI, which states that "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." If you have concerns about wording, could you let me know which words should be changed/removed or perhaps edit the article to reflect a more neutral POV? Howkafkaesque (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Howkafkaesque: Yes, and you did remove the tag without warning. The maintenance tag is a message within itself. — Music1201 talk 16:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Music1201, I have added quotation marks to indicate that any praise she received was quoted directly from the source cited. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement keeping in line with NPOV. Howkafkaesque (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Your math is off

The following discussion 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.

I noticed your updated CSD metrics. Your math is incorrect. You're averaging your averages over March (0.76), April (0.75), and May (1.0) to get 0.836, which is statistically invalid because you're weighing your months equally. Instead, you should calculate the properly-weighted mean:

Which, with your numbers, would be:

(Note: This will be slightly inaccurate because your listed rates are rounded.)

More simply, calculate the acceptance rate over all your CSDs:

Also—I just noticed—instead of hard-coding your last-updated date, you could use: {{date|{{REVISIONYEAR:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}-{{REVISIONMONTH:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}-{{REVISIONDAY:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|mdy}} to let Mediawiki generate it for you. [This won't work because the CSD log is going to be updated by Twinkle. And I thought it was so clever.  Still, it could be done by keeping your stats in a separate statistics page for transclusion, e.g., CSD log/Metrics.]

Cheers.  Rebbing  17:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Thanks, but why shouldn't the months be weighed equally? — Music1201 talk 18:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Because each month doesn't have equal numbers of CSD tagging. Your method gives May's 4 tags the same weight as April's 102 tags and March's 63 tags, meaning that each of May's tags counts an order of magnitude more than it should. To put it another way: you're reporting that you've had 129 of 169 nominations accepted. Do the math:
That's 76.3 percent, not 84 percent.  Rebbing  21:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rebbing: Oh that makes sense. — Music1201 talk 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Deletion of Michael G Wilmot

The following discussion 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.

Not sure if this is too late, but I've cited some more sources for productions of Wilmot's plays across the US and also cited publication sources. Hoping this builds notibility and fends off deletion! Thanks for your time and attention Fred977Fred977 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The community decided to delete the article at AfD because it does not meet the general notability guideline, adding sources will not do anything for this article because the notability of a person does not necessarily change based on it's sources. — Music1201 talk 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It doesn't change the notability, but it can be used to better assert notability. Nevertheless, it's deleted now. Omni Flames let's talk about it 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Request on 21:27:23, 4 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Freeman1856


The January 1915 page is meant to be a main article page linked to the year 1915 page. This is done in similar fashion to pretty much all years from 1900 to 1914. You can refer to all those pages to see what I mean. Continually, I'm unaware how to rename the article from "Draft" to article without getting into an issue about duplication, which seems to stem from the 1915 page. Previous editors for 1913 and 1914 seem to find a way around it but have not provided specific direction to me on how I could do it myself (perhaps it's out of my level of jurisdiction?). I recommend you speak to User Mandsford as he has the most communication with me, is most familiar with my work, has monitored my submission for the 1914 page, and generally has been encouraging me to continue creating month to month historic event descriptions which are lacking for the World War One years. Freeman1856 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Freeman1856: I have moved Draft:January 1915 to January 1915. — Music1201 talk 21:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
But actually, Music1201, you still have not moved the draft yet. The article to move to is still a redlink. You should move the draft now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done — Music1201 talk 03:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staff and Educational Development Association

I honestly believe this is best relisted considering the current article is still questionable at best, even if the 2 votes suggested keeping, because this could still use better attention. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Re-listed @SwisterTwister: — Music1201 talk 01:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower)

The following discussion 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.

Hi, Music! You relisted this nomination about an hour after I relisted it. Do you think we should remove your relist notice, so that it doesn't look as if it has been relisted twice (i.e., for two additional weeks instead of one)? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, Yes, I just removed the 2nd relist. — Music1201 talk 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Métro Line 18

Hi Music. Just want to confirm that you meant to include Paris Métro Line 15 in the merge close. If you did that is fine and an acceptable reading of the consensus, but as I will probably do the merge if no one else beats me to it and just wanted to double check. AIRcorn (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, Yes I did mean to include the Metro Line 15 article. When determining the consensus there was no valid reason not to include it. Just because the article was longer and more developed does not mean that it should be an independent article. — Music1201 talk 02:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the response. AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Harlacher

The following discussion 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.

As this AfD is not a straightforward keep, kindly revert your closure so an admin can take a look. I think it deserves a relisting, given the bandwagoning. czar 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Czar: — Music1201 talk 22:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Music, again, could you please let an admin close this one? NACs are meant for the easy, most obvious, and uncontroversial closes. czar 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Czar, I'll revert it even though there is pretty clear consensus to keep. — Music1201 talk 21:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If you're counting bold "keep"s, yes. If you're looking at policy and argument, a comment beneath your last relist says otherwise. (Thanks. Didn't necessarily need it relisted, but I wanted an admin to do the close.) I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 22:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: If you look at the AfD, I can only find 1 delete !vote with references to policies. !votes like "No notability" do not contribute to determining consensus and thus are not always counted when determining consensus. Almost all "keep" !votes reference applicable policies. I doubt this AfD will close as delete, but I relisted it because there clearly needs to be more discussion. If the discussion is not closed after 7 more days, I will close as no consensus. — Music1201 talk 22:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, all I requested is for it to be not closed as NAC, regardless of outcome. czar 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

I'll be the third editor to request that you refrain from further closing or relisting activities at this AfD. You say above that you relisted it again "because there clearly needs to be more discussion," yet it appears you didn't think so when you chose close it as keep—twice. Please let the sysops handle this. Thank you.  Rebbing  00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

RM at Harvard station (Illinois)

Hi Music1201, could you revisit your close at Harvard station (Illinois)? It seems to me that the consensus was for the alternate proposal.Cúchullain t/c 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain, consensus to perform both moves was established, I don't see any reason to re-open the request. — Music1201 talk 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There was consensus to system disambiguate and move
You moved
Sam Sailor Talk! 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for fixing it.--Cúchullain t/c 01:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Larose Forest

I would like contribution about developing the Larose Forest page. I noticed there is two pages. Must be an error can you merge them? I also put the gps coordinates of the Administrative Buildings of it.

I am new to Wikipedia edits your help would be appreciated.

Thanks Mathieu. Treetype (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Treetype, the page has been moved to Draft:Larose Forest, the article should be created/improved their until it's long enough to become encyclopedic. Happy editing! — Music1201 talk 01:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisting

In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsvilla. Note that per WP:RELIST, discussions should typically only be relisted twice, and a third should have an explanation. Four relists is definitely excessive. North America1000 07:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambacher Kreuz

Hi. You thought there were strong points on both sides. Since there were no in-depth sourcing, was just wondering what argument for keep you were speaking about. Onel5969 TT me 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

onel5969, Specifically Kusma's keep comment made it clear that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. If you look under several of the "Find Sources" links listed next to the article in the deletion discussion, you will find many results on all of them (establishing notability). Your only comment was "Ordinary interchange" which does not provide valid input to the discussion, but other delete votes also claimed the interchange was ordinary. A clear consensus was not reached after two times being relisted, and more keep !votes were added (all of them bringing valid points). None of the delete !votes included policy references. — Music1201 talk 02:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. I understand what his comment said. However, the sourcing (as I pointed out) is not what is required by GNG, which says that a topic has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", none of which any of the sources does. Other than the rationale of Kusma, the other keep votes were as follows: "This interchange is very well-known. It's the intersection of two major Autobahns and one end of the Sauerlandlinie connecting Dortmund and the north with Rhine-Main. The intersection is a key navigational point, frequently mentioned in traffic flow and accident reports. Plenty of sources available." - Again, not sure which guideline this points to, as it appears to be simply routine coverage. - sorry, which guideline does this follow? - not a single source indicated, and it is simply routine coverage; next we have "This does appear to be a major autobahn interchange. News about its reconstruction, like this source indicates its notability. Non-notable interchanges don't get written about in this way." This links to a single source, which if you look at the sourcing, bases it reports on press releases, and again, construction announcements are pretty much the definition of routine. The next keep !vote is simply: "I think it is notable and useful article". Not sure which policy/guideline this is pointing to.
So, what you have is four keep !votes, one of which adds a dubious source, the other three which add virtually nothing. The links to news are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. This isn't a big deal, I guess I just didn't like the personal attack which went unnoticed. I normally don't discuss the decisions on articles I've sent to AfD (in fact, I think this is the first), regardless, take care. Onel5969 TT me 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Music1201, for closing this AfD and leaving a concise summary. onel5969, I'm sorry this has hit a nerve. None of us wish you any ill, even if we differ in opinion, e.g. your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Divergent opinions are healthy. Peace and happy editing.Guffydrawers (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dr S S Agarwal, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/54321

While I appreciate that Twisted Sister apparently never does WP:BEFORE prior to opining, the film topic does indeed meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and at the minimum the discussion should have remained open for at least one relisting. That concern stated, I'll use the sources I found and fix it up and return it article space. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Music1201, I must disagree with you on this one. There was 1 keep vote and 1 draft vote. In my opinion the keep vote was more convincing because it actually made a policy-based argument. Nevertheless, this AFD deserved to be relisted, and just because one person voted for "draftify" whilst there were other votes as well is not a valid reason to close it as move to draft. I completely understand your enthusiasm in closing AFDs, but could you perhaps hold of a bit and return to making NACs when you've got a better idea of "consensus" and have made more votes yourself? This is the second time someone has approached you about your AFD closes today, and there was one about 6 days ago too. Thank you. Omni Flames let's talk about it 04:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
... and it's far better now expanded to a short start class rather than the unsourced crappy stub you decided to take to deletion. WP:BEFORE is not a bad suggestion when appraising new articles. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Omni Flames, MichaelQSchmidt, I'll relist the AfD. I have closed 71 AfD discussions and only 3 of them have been questionable. I'll refrain from closing discussions with an unclear consensus although I have been thanked for most (95.8%) of my closures. — Music1201 talk 17:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
And Music1201, please do not judge new film articles on present state, but take into consideration the inexperience of some newbies in their understanding of sourcing and spend some time in looking for sources they did not know to use. AND for Indian film topics, please use the search tools shared at WP:INDAFD. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I am shocked that you have closed 71 AfD discussions when your account is only one month old. Most editors would wait until they had more editing experience before taking on a responsibility like this. Did you have a previous user account? Liz Read! Talk! 12:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
And a point of a relisting rather than prematurely closing an AFD with one early "comment", one early "draftify", and one keep (after improvements) is that through patience, even the nominator herself came back to vote for "keep" (essentially withdrawing her deletion nomination). Advice: If an article does not strictly meet WP:DEL#REASON, we are not in a super hurry to toss out improvable topics.Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You reverted an edit

Got a message about reverting a post because what I added "wasn't constructive." I'm wondering what the justification for the page being in its current state is, due to the lack of any support for the game many call "smear the queer" being called "muckle". Wiktionary does not define muckle as having anything to do with a game, and there is no citation supporting this uncommon name as being the proper name. I cannot find any reference where the game is referred to as "muckle" other than the Wikipedia article itself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.72.147 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

NAC closures at AfD

Dear Music1201,
You are inappropriately closing AFDs, specifically, read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, the pertinent sentence is "The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally, or has little or no previous participation in deletion discussions". You have only been editing Wikipedia for a month which is not enough experience to be closing dozens of deletion discussions where you need to spend time, carefully reading through the rationales for keep, delete, merge and no consensus opinions, and come to a thoughtful and informed closure decision.

Please do not close deletion discussions until you have at least three months' experience editing Wikipedia. Earlier, I asked you if you had edited with a different account in the past which you didn't answer. If you had an earlier Wikipedia account, it could help editors and admins understand why a very new editor would jump into closing AfDs. Of course, you are more than welcome to participate in deletion discussions by examining the nominated pages and offering your opinion on whether they should be kept or deleted but please do not close any further deletion discussions right now.

When you do have sufficient editing experience, please read over, thoroughly, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures and abide by the guidance this page contains. Liz Read! Talk! 11:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz, I'll stop closing AFDs. Here are a list of AFDs I closed the day before you posted this:

— Music1201 talk 13:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hello. On 6 May you closed (non-admin closure) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamless as keep. I understand that you're willing to help out with closing debates at AfD but I just want to know why you closed this one as keep when there had been no general consensus. There were two keeps (one was lengthy, the other one was just an agreement) versus my nomination for deletion. Would it not have been better to re-list it rather than close the discussion? st170etalk 00:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Re-listed @St170e: — Music1201 talk 01:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhankaar-The_beat_of_LPU, kindly help so that the page is not deleted, the page consist of genuine description of the Indian Student Organization which have shown remarkable innovation in the field of innovation.Jhankaar-The beat of LPU (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Music1201/Archive_2&oldid=1141457783"