Jump to content

User talk:Tone/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comment

Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone.
Click here to leave me a new message

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23

hi

[edit]

Hi. I hope you are doing well.
You recently deleted Adam Bader after an AfD. That article was in my watchlist, but cant remember why. If it is not much of a bother, would you please look at the history, and see if I had edited it? Please feel free to say no. But it would be very grand if you could do it. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, you edited it in 2017, you nominated it as a PROD and tagged it some further. Makes sense it was on your watchlist :) Hope that helps. --Tone 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesnt ring any bells, but thanks a lot for the information; it is very much appreciated. See you around —usernamekiran(talk) 07:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Bardhyl Selimi

[edit]

User:Hyrdlak has asked for a deletion review of Bardhyl Selimi. 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. —Cryptic 00:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

31.53.73.203 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)hello

[edit]

31.53.73.203 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)I was wondering if you could help me out? I’ve recently was trying to see my fathers page on Wikipedia and it was deleted. He is a prominent jazz musician who worked and still works abroad and at home in Russia. His name is Sergey Manukyan. He is very well known in jazz circles and many international festivals. He appeared on the Voice in Russia recently. My father is also a disabled musician, he is almost blind, and has worked hard all his life to his fame. And I find it sad that even though he is well recognised amongst jazz musicians, he’s got wiki articles in Armenian and Russian, but the English article is deleted. I do understand that maybe there was something you didn’t like in the article. I don’t know what it was? But I can see how this could happen, since we don’t know who made this article about my dad. We don’t know the author. My dad is a famous persona and we assumed that, that’s why the wiki article was created. But we were never sure who wrote it. So I can’t confirm wether the content was written according to all policies. So I was wondering if you could help me with this please? Many thanks, Dina Gray[reply]

Hi, the article was deleted after a nomination, the suggestion was to rewrite it completely since the existing version was in a poor condition. So, I suggest you look at some other musician's articles and follow the style. Let me know if that works :) --Tone 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Joy Silverman

[edit]

Is it not protocol to inform the creator of the article (in this case Joy Silverman) that their article is being deleted. I think my vote would helped to have maintained the article and perhaps I could flesh it out more.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the nomination. Since it was closed as a merge/redirect, if you believe you can get a full article without problems, go ahead :) --Tone 17:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XFDcloser shorted out

[edit]

I heard you deleted List of The Tribe characters. When I saw the delete log, I saw that XFDcloser apparently shorted out. What do you think? ミラP 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had to delete it manually. Maybe some links were left out, some bot can probably take care of that. --Tone 06:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion summary

[edit]

I'm not sure whether Indiginous Americans should be deleted (I was about to decline the CSD in favour of RFD when you deleted the page) but I certainly disagree with your deletion summary: redirects created in 2014 are not "recently created". Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 12:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just deleted it due to a typo. Someone else placed that tag. Feel free to proceed as you see fit. --Tone 12:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of East Bengal the Real Power

[edit]

I do not feel East Bengal the Real Power page should be deleted as it is a fan group and was created under the fan group category with all relative references and links. EBRP is the first registered fans club for a football team in India and the article did not promote anything about the fan club, just provided facts and history about the fan movement. I strongly disagree with the deletion.—SabyaC (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, restoring. The article may end up at AfD, though, so keep an eye on it. --Tone 08:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD at Entelo

[edit]

I just got an edit conflict message. I was about to vote keep and add references. Please undelete the article and re-open the AFD. Here was what I was going to post:

1. "Women in the Workplace (A Special Report) --- Apps to Battle Job Bias: Software takes on hiring and workplace practices"; Silverman, Rachel ; Gellman, Lindsay, Wall Street Journal, Sep 30, 2015, p.R.7 (here the company's algorithm is discussed as a means of overcoming gender bias)

−

2. "Women's representation in technology fields decreases as seniority increases, research shows" by Talley, Karen; FierceCEO, Mar 22, 2018 (discusses/analyzes data released by Entelo and what that means for women employed in the technology sector)

−

3. Max, Sarah (Sep 11, 2014). "Uncertain About Hiring, Some Companies Try 'Test Drives'". p. B.9. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

−

4 Adam Bryant (August 1, 2014). "Tell Me About Your Next Job: Jon Bischke, the chief of Entelo, a recruiting software platform, says that employees who think ahead do well at their current jobs". p. B2. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

−

5 Claire Cain Miller (June 25, 2015). Can an Algorithm Hire Better Than a Human?. p. SR4. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

−

6 Winsborough, Dave ; Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas (Spring 2016). "Talent Identification in the Digital World: New Talent Signals and the Future of HR Assessment". People and Strategy. 39(2): 28-31.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This peer reviewed article discusses Entelo's algorithms ability to identify passive job seekers who might fit a particular role for prospective companies.

− − This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Now you can move this to AfD so that the discussion can continue. --Tone 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song Like You

[edit]

IMHO, there was insufficient discussion to redirect a large number of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song Like You, which probably should have resulted in "No Consensus". Can you elaborate on your reasoning for redirecting a large number of articles? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was relisted twice already, with little input. A redirect seemed like a good closure. But since it's a non-delete outcome, feel free to change it if you have good reasons. --Tone 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Song Like You

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Song Like You. 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) 20:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Entelo

[edit]

It appears that you deleted Entelo citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entelo as your reason. But that hasn't yet been closed, and if it were to be closed now, it doesn't look to me as if there would be a consensus to delete. Was there a mistake here? Or what is going on, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same comment.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tone from the talk page history of the AfD it appears to me that you have reverted your closure, but forgot to undo the delete. I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Entelo feel free to close that request when you are online. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Marc Sellam

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marc Sellam. 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. 92.184.97.17 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Campbell (educator)

[edit]

I thought you'd wait a few hours to the discussion. I got a response from the subject and she gave me specific reasons to delete her article. I am formally requesting you to re-open the AfD. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Though, is there not a better way than AfD in such cases? Reopening and relisting. --Tone 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Tone

[edit]

you deleted a page, (wrongly & vandalisticly) in my view) Charles de Salis. Id like to have access to the hours of research that went into that page, please can you direct me to some sort of ghost of that hard work please. Rodolph (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article was deleted following a discussion in which you also participated, and where the arguments were to delete. I can provide you the content, is your talkpage fine? --Tone 12:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, talk page ok, thanks, Rodolph (talk)

Deletion of Page Rakesh Mohan Joshi

[edit]

Hi, you have deleted an article titled 'Rakesh Mohan Joshi' with out properly discussing with the community. The page had enough citation and resources to support its credibility. Could you suggest a way to bring back that page. The article seemed to be the biography of a living person who is well egarded in the Indian academic sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshad TP (talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article was deleted following a discussion, which is the proper way. To move forward, have a look at the reasons it got deleted and figure out if you can address them. Sometimes, it is best to start a new article in the draftspace first. --Tone 09:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Márta Kurtág

[edit]

Thank you for thinking about Márta Kurtág (failed ITN, but now DYK)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, great article ;) --Tone 18:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, thanks :) --Tone 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Snedden

[edit]

This should have been relisted. I doubt with further time it will be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Relisted. --Tone 10:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander (2nd nomination)

[edit]

May I suggest a soft delete instead and redirect to List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons? Plausible search term.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, will create a redirect. --Tone 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh

[edit]

I believe you should restore this page because she is now in the news much more than before. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/inspector-general-report-retaliation-state-department/index.html Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. If I restore, are you willing to update the article and work on it? --Tone 11:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted this as an official DRV since she is a subject of major public interest and was also intimately involved in the shaping of key and highly publicized foreign policy toward Iran. Ave Caesar (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/V.I.P. (1991 film)

[edit]

Hi there. As nom, can I respectfully suggest a relist? There is one Delete (the nominator) and one Keep. I can't really respond, as the sources brought (which are not in the stub) are in polish, which I can't read. Was hoping other editors would weigh in on this discussion. Thanks. Hydromania (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went with AGF on the Polish sources, which claim to establish the notability (which was missing earlier). Do you think the consensus can shift to a strong delete? --Tone 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AGF? I mean, I trust that user believes it establishes notability, I don't know that the consensus would follow. yes, I think the consensus can shift to delete. It could just be relisted and we'd know for sure. Is there harm in letting it stay open another week? Hydromania (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, relisted. --Tone 12:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sahar Nowrouzzadeh

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh. 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. Ave Caesar (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

[edit]

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that Slovenia at the Olympics – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 9. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premature AfD close?

[edit]

I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seen in NY while doing peer review for new page patrol, and I think it could have benefited from being relisted. I honestly don't see an argument beyond "I like it" from the keeps, and the similarity of their writing makes me suspect sockpuppeting (not to mention that one of the accounts got blocked for sockpuppeting). Would you be willing to reconsider this closure?signed, Rosguill talk 06:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can relist it. The main keep argument was that the editors were willing to keep working on it but let's have some more discussion indeed. --Tone 10:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close reconsideration Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Master (Meher Baba) (2nd nomination)

[edit]

You've closed the Baba "perfect master" deletion request, did the clean up, posted it, all in one minute. Please go back and read the discussion as well as the previous deletion attempt, the page is well sourced from peer-reviewed academic sources, and upon further study of the discussion, sources, and previous discussion, you might change your mind and keep the page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there was a rough consensus to redirect. I would leave it for a longer discussion but there were no comments after two relistings. Closed, did the clean up, posted it ... what do you mean by that? The closure is done by an automated script to help the admin, that's why it is fast ;) --Tone 13:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to redirect and keeping depends on the discussion arguments, and this one had been kept previously and has academic sources. Only two editors commented on the nomination. I didn't know about the script, but your numerous deletion closings in literally a couple of minutes on either side of this close shows you may not have thoroughly studied the discussion points and read the opposing arguments of this close. It has good academic sources which you can read yourself in the links (I thought such links are given so closers can study the evidence), and since there were no additional comments after two relistings, please reconsider your decision and consider keeping this page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's relist it to get some more input. At the time being, I cannot close it as a keep consensus. --Tone 13:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although others may or may not comment so a 'no consensus' decision would seem possible. And I notice I was wrong above, not knowing of the quick and numerous bot edits when a page is closed. That's quite a bot. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It helps a lot, I remember how painful it was to do it manually :/ And the bot sees things one would otherwise miss. --Tone 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Peabody page deleted

[edit]

Hi - I’ve been notified that my page for Rob Peabody has been recently deleted. We use this page quite a bit for work, bios, and other speaking publicity. Can it please be put back up? Thank you! - Rob Peabody

Is it this one? Robert J. Peabody? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s the one for Robert William Peabody, Jr. (Rob Peabody) - my team was looking for it in order to update the page when they saw it had been removed.
Please read WP:Conflict of interest. That might explain why the article was deleted. Nobody from your "team" should be editing an article without disclosing that they have such a conflict. It would be best if the editor registered so he or she could be recognized by other WP:Editors. Everybody wants new articles in Wikipedia, but they have to be approved by people to whom the community has given that responsibility. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Click User_talk:47.185.200.50 for more info. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one that was related to me or works with me created this page. I have no clue who created it, and then have noticed throughout the years that strangers have made edits. I can ensure you that I will not have my team edit this page now that I know the policies. We have not edited it in the past, but when wanting to now, found that the page was removed. We will definitely follow the conflict of interest policies now that we are aware of them. Can you please reinstate the page? Many thanks!

I found the deletion discussion. It seems if it is to be recreated, it needs a complete rewrite and start from draft. --Tone 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zone X

[edit]

Request copy of deleted article copied to here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Tone 17:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New article created! QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine :) --Tone 23:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Finland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon 5: Clark's Law

[edit]

You are currently closing a bunch of my watchlisted fiction AfDs. Could you please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylon 5: Clark's Law as an uninvolved admin? I'd like to proceed with cleaning up the B5 coverage. Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 10:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! That was an easy close. --Tone 11:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gethen close/redirect

[edit]

Hi - I noticed that you closed the AfD for Gethen with a consensus to redirect to Planets of the Hainish Cycle. However, the latter article was also undergoing AfD at that time, which you closed with a consensus to delete. So now Gethen is erased as well. Is it possible to either redirect Gethen to The Left Hand of Darkness (as a couple of us in the Gethen AfD suggested) or reopen the Gethen AfD in light of the original target's deletion? Funcrunch (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, tricky. I will make a redirect, sounds reasonable. --Tone 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019)

[edit]

Hi. And first of all, thanks for all your efforts here on WP. Regarding this AfD discussion, while not done in the common fashion, the nom added four other articles to the discussion. When you closed the discussion, you didn't delete those others: 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, 2019 Shaybah attack, 2019 East–West Pipeline attack, and 2019 Aden Missile Strike.Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, must have been a script malfunction. I will do it manually then. Thanks! --Tone 14:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, they just popped up on my watchlist when another editor removed the template the nom had placed on each. Thought you might like to know. Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice censorship regarding 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq ! I don't care whether the rest of the articles are deleted or kept. This one has been contributed me and other users a lot. It is a very important regional article that was ranked B. The creator being banned for the deletion of this article is pure WP:GRAVEDANCING and censorship of an article possibly critical of Israel. There was not full consensus to delete it at the AfD neither. KasimMejia (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed as a consensus to me. Anyway, I see it is at DRV, I will be happy to help with admin actions if needed. --Tone 19:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for closing many AfDs recently. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) --Tone 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq. 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. KasimMejia (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for restoration of redirect/edit history

[edit]

Hello, as the closing admin. for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Armstrong (U.S. Coast Guard officer), which resulted in deletion, would you kindly restore the redirect of the title to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Declared candidates as it was originally before content was added? Also, I would like to request that the edit history be restored as well, so that relevant content can be merged into the target article if and when needed. It will also aid in re-creation of the article should subject gain enough valid coverage to deemed notable by consensus and WP:GNG (there is potential for such to happen). FWIW, I and another editor made such a request in the afd discussion and no objection was made. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.Sal2100 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Tone 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sal2100 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Juri Tanaka

[edit]

Hi,

I have noticed that you have recently redirect the page of Juri Tanaka due to the deletion discussion on lack of independent notability. Would it be possible to move the article back to draftspace instead so that more work can be done on the article to justify the subject's notability? Thank you. Jaz97k (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. --Tone 08:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I took care of it, here it is: Draft:Juri Tanaka. --Tone 14:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaz97k (talk • contribs) 13:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araria district

[edit]

Not sure what happened here. The article Araria district, has the AfD notice at top, but this did not transclude to the list of AfD articles. Regardless, it should be speedily kept, as it is not a dupe article, being about the district, rather than the city. Wasn't sure if I should simply nom it for speedy and remove the AfD template or what? Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an incomplete AfD nomination. Perhaps you mention this to the user who started it and then you can probably remove the tag. --Tone 14:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new user got confused between the city and the district article and thinking one is redundant, made a failed attempt to nominate the district article for deletion. it is a snow keep case. Tone, what must be done. I have explained the user about it here User_talk:Sherly.v#Araria_district, but lets not waste precious AfD resource on this sill nomination. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh names

[edit]

Howdy - I think some wires got crossed when closing that AfD. There's no point in redirecting anything to draft - if draftify is the outcome, it's a move, and the original page including its history should be moved. Otherwise you just have cross-namespace redirect to a redlink while throwing away earlier work (which is apparently valid, as acknowledged byAfD participants). So I suspect this may have been a misunderstanding. I have undone the redirect and moved the article to Draft:List of Welsh names for (hopefully) further development. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Finland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Marvel Family enemies (A–G)

[edit]

Is there a good reason why this article and others were deleted and NOT redirected? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone - also, the other 3 pages in that AfD weren't deleted when you deleted this article. Their pages still contain the AfD notice, so not sure what happened.Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: Hm, perhaps a redirect would be in place, true. Redirects are cheap. I will restore the one and redirect them all. --Tone 22:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your ITN edit

[edit]

Please see the revert at ITN/Candidates for the ITN edit. Trying to AGF. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Ajay Kapur

[edit]

Hello, My students and colleagues have made my Wikipedia page over the years. I noticed that in November it says you marked it for speedy deletion. I would love your help to understand what went wrong and help delete any content that is not in guidelines and get the page back up. I am an academic and Associate Provost at California Institute of the Arts, and have devoted my life to contributing knowledge to society. My students recently told me that I am no longer on wikipedia and thus I am trying to resolve what happened.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalraja (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a look at what happened. The article was deleted following a discussion where the consensus was clear to delete. The main problem was the lack of sources establishing notability - which was indeed the case as the sources were not about in-depth coverage. Doing some checking, I suppose that if the students recreate the article using the guidelines from WP:PROF, it could work better. But the key thing are the sources. I hope that helps. I can also provide the old content if needed. Best, --Tone 08:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, it would be great to get eth old content and I will pass on to my students and share all this information with them. Very helpful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalraja (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Anyway you can send the old content so I can share with my students so they can recreate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalraja (talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot about that, sorry. Where should I copy it? --Tone 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry... how about this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gLo82nEdpPtnRo0lIeHwW7jaUOs98L0F2r5Id9DezEc/edit?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalraja (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I copied it to your talkpage instead, easier ;) --Tone 08:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRV on Marvel dimensions

[edit]

Since you closed the AFD, you're invited to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_December_14#List_of_Marvel_Comics_dimensions. ミラP 01:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 15, since Miraclepine missed midnight UTC. —Cryptic 02:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Raydor

[edit]

Hi Tone, please could you re-open this AfD discussion? I was just adding a Keep !vote, but when I went to publish it, you had already closed it. My contribution was going to be:

  • Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows several articles about this character, including this from the Edmonton Journal in 2012 [1] and the Boston Globe the same year [2]; this from the Los Angeles Times in 2013 [3]; this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2014 [4]; this from 2017 [5], in a newspaper from Virginia, sourced from Variety - and no doubt there's more, but that is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG.

The only other contributor, apart from the nominator, does not seem to have looked outside the article for sources at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can do that. I will relist it to get some more input. --Tone 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodor

[edit]

7 redirect 7 keep 1 merge 1 nomination which is perhaps a delete !vote. This is a no-consensus. I understand the argument you chose, however there are 7 keep !voters who did not agree and with you and the 7 who favored redirect. In this case we have a very clear consensus. I ask you to please reconsider the close since it is a clear no-consensus. An article can be renominated many times, but deletion/redirection is a death penalty with little recourse. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was a controversial closure but I stand by my decision. A redirect is still not a delete. And I would close it as a keep if the article had some more content than the plot summary. Darth Vader, cited in the discussion, is how an article about a fictional character should be structured (though, clearly, there is not as much content for Hodor or Ygritte). Perhaps a draft and then move to article space. The content is still all there. --Tone 14:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW My opinion is that a closer should allow the consensus to carry the AfD as long as no policy is violated. WP:N is guidance, not policy. Normally I feel that your closings are spot on, however here you did cast a supervote. And on the Ygritte close even more-so. Some of the keep !voters like myself had humerous !vote rationale's and perhaps that colored your close. However the !vote there was 7 keep 5 redirect 1 merge. There is no controversy in following the WP:CONSENSUS whicsph is a policy not a guideline. Nearly everything we do is by consensus unless prohibited by policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is based on the weight of each argument, not the number of !votes. Humorous comments are rarely based on policy and should, in fact, color the close. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...I do understand how a close works. Normally a closer assesses the AfD and upholds consensus or does not redirect/delete when there is no-consensus. You admitted you made a controversial closing...I do not think that you should have. Lightburst (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial in a way that I was aware that many people would not like the outcome. Still, I considered the arguments. --Tone 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Hodor

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hodor. 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. Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone I posted a comment at the deletion review and I'd love to understand your thinking better if you're willing. It's possible I've misinterpreted what you wrote and wrote at length about a non-existent problem or it's possible there are other elements I haven't considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ygritte

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ygritte. 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. Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

[edit]
Merry Christmas, Tone!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

[edit]
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはToneたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sections with the same name

[edit]

Thanks for your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mississippi Rag. Wanted to note for the future that Ragtime#Revivals is different from Ragtime#Revivals_2, as there are two sections by the same name in the target article and the intent was to link to the second one. I'll fix it here. Thanks and happy holidays! (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha

[edit]

Hello Tone. I'm reaching out because you are the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantha (2nd nomination) with the result of Redirect. I wasn't originally planning to reach out because I hate to be that guy who pesters an admin when they don't agree with a decision they made, but decided to do so since Piotrus, the original editor who nominated it for deletion, actually suggested I ask you to reopen/relist it or take it to UNDELETE/DELREV. I've pinged Piotrus so he can speak for himself if he wishes, but he indicated to me that he would not have nominated it for AFD if it looked the way it did after my efforts to substantially expand/improve the article (before and after. Personally, I was a little surprised that the result was Redirect instead of Keep/No Consensus, since there were a roughly equal number of Keep and Redirect votes, and I felt my improvements and stated intentions to continue improving the article were not addressed. But in any event, I did want to seek your thoughts on this since Piotrus made the suggestion, and I wanted to make sure you wouldn't be offended if I brought it to UNDELETE/DELREV? — Hunter Kahn 14:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article has improved significantly since the early votes where cast, so frankly I think the best solution would be to close this nom as no-consensus, with no prejudice to anyone who would want to nominate it again (I won't myself, since while I think the entry is still borderline, I think it is on the right side of borderline-ness). As someone who AfDs a ton of fictional stuff, I feel this one has been really improved to the point we need more than just a casual 'redirect' verdict. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Shen

[edit]

Another deletion where I think you did not properly evaluate the !vote rationales. It seems only two actually gave a reasonable guideline based rationale.

  • Delete per nom
  • Delete a non-notable model
  • Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. (the only !vote that went one to discuss the !votes was Levivich)
  • Delete. Hyperbolick
  • delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored
  • Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. (dismissed based on one source)
Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I evaluated it on the basis that the delete votes were arguing that the sources were not sufficient or are mostly passing mentions. The sources are the key after all. --Tone 18:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we both evaluating the same rationales? I am showing you that a !vote like (the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored) is not really a rationale to delete. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable", "the remaining sources are not indepth/are interviews and thus not independant" are rather sound arguments why the sources are not good. --Tone 18:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I am troubled by the weight given to the Justavotes, but I am bound to lose the argument at DRV anyway. So happy new year. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year, all the best! As for the article, there is always a chance to rewrite it if better sources show up ;) --Tone 18:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living former members of the Australian Senate

[edit]

Hi, I left a message on this article specifically asking the person who closed the AfD to look at the concurrent discussion going on about the House of Representatives article and take a consistent approach - because the same issues were raised in both. However, you just completely ignored my comment and just closed as delete with no comments whatsoever. That's not right. Why did you ignore my comment? Bookscale (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the other nomination after I closed the first one but while the consensus seemed clear on this one, it was not as much on the other one, so I wantet to have it running longer. I should have commented on that earlier, my bad. --Tone 08:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags (3rd nomination)

[edit]

Can you please expand on your delete decision like you did here? Because I'm sure there was a lot of discussion that just saying delete isn't enough... ミラP 16:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a very clear consensus to me. The main aspects are covered in another and the delete opinions are based on relevant policies. (This reply goes to the Simpsons article, I am not sure how the Kill Bill that you also linked is relevant here?) --Tone 19:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion for Digify

[edit]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digify

The Digify company page was deleted for a lack of significance.

Here are the press articles Digify received previously: https://digify.com/news.html

These are recent coverage:

These are other articles on Digify

Digify is frequently included in analyst reports in recent months.

Digify is the winner of competitions such as the RSA Innovation Sandbox.

Can you consider undoing the deletion?

--Augustinelim (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the article is rewritten in the draft space and then moved to the main space. I can provide you the old content if you need it. --Tone 08:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tone. Please let me have the old content. Is there no other way to undelete? Augustinelim (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the old content. Thanks Tone. Augustinelim (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats - it's a Featured List

[edit]
Congrats
on the recent promotion of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark/archive1 to Featured list status. Shearonink (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The West Wing politicians

[edit]

Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians on Veep had almost as much support for redirect as it had for delete, I thought it would be worth asking. Can I convince you to restore List of The West Wing politicians as a redirect to List of The West Wing characters? The nominator's assertion that all noteworthy politicians were covered in the latter article isn't true, and I would like to do a (highly selective) merge. Wikiacc () 05:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that :) --Tone 06:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wikiacc () 06:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests

[edit]

Is there a reason why Lists of 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests was deleted and not redirected? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect help? This was a list of lists, a rather improbably search term. Or would you want to keep the content, which there was little of? --Tone 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - A redirect with history in tact would likely be the default based on the discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Restored and redirected. --Tone 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Barbie Castro Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Hi,

You recently deleted the Barbie Castro Wikipedia page. Just curious why was it deleted? And can I re-write it and publish it again with the same title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max266 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the issue was the notability. I suggest you recreate the article in draft space and then ask for it to be moved to mainspace. --Tone 14:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What independent sources do I need? Can you give me any examples if i'm using websites? I just want to know what is considered good by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max266 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) cast members

[edit]

Hi, can you restore that at User:Dr. Blofeld/List of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) cast members, the idea was to root out missing actors. I would like to still keep it in my user space♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) --Tone 08:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore request

[edit]

Dear Tone, I'm AFD nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Sum. At the time, he was competing in the top 5 of Myanmar Idol Season 4. So seems like WP:TOOSOON. End of the final competition, he became the Runner Up of the Season 4. Now he meets WP:MUSICBIO #9 and that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted. So please kindly restore the article if you agree and I'll expand on article. I don't want to create new because I want to show respect for the original creator Qt0411JL, see he said on my talk page. Thanks Idolmm (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tone... please reply me.Idolmm (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes ... restored :) Makes sense. --Tone 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much admin, you are the best. I have added some sources and information to the article. I think there is sufficient evidence that he meets WP:GNG & WP:NMUSICIAN.Idolmm (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Jani Likaveč

[edit]

I was looking into the the redirect Jani Likaveč when I noticed you had deleted it before I could get the results of my research in. I noticed the page was created at this title by a prolific creator of biographies from databases, so I figured there must be a database that uses the spelling. Turns out, the only reference [6] uses that spelling (but is showing as Mojibake to me). Therefore, since a major database uses the spelling, I believe it is plausible for someone to use that spelling to search for this athlete, even if it may be incorrect (not to mention it was the article title for a few years). Therefore, I would like you to revert your early close so I can lodge a "keep" !vote and allow the discussion to play out for the full seven days so we can discuss these findings. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it does not show "č" to me either, and a google search by that name only turns SR and wiki-derived results. I am not sure what is the best action. --Tone 08:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can either revert your closure and reopen the discussion that you improperly closed early or we can hash this out at DRV. Your choice. -- Tavix (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restore the XFD, let's continue there. --Tone 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Janez Stanovnik

[edit]

On 1 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Janez Stanovnik, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Tone. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SN54129 20:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Last year I had tried to add a Wikipedia page on Malcolm Levy, an artist I wrote about in my second book (with Dartmouth College Press). You gave some great feedback, but then time got away from me, and the page was deleted because I didn't make any changes. I wanted to pass you a note that I plan to try again in the coming while, just organizing the right tone and citations, and I'd appreciate your feedback again. Thanks! More soon. NathanielS (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction

[edit]

User:Guinness2702 has asked for a deletion review of List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction. 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. —Cryptic 16:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article as Draft

[edit]

Hi, Thanks for closing this AfD. This article of a politician seems to have come up again as a draft (and I suspect due to WP:PROMO reasons). He had recently contested the election but lost. So there is no improvement in the notability since the time it was deleted. Can you take care of the draft or suggest what needs to be done about it ? --DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for into on a photo

[edit]

I am interested in using a photo you posted in a book I am writing. This is a battle at a Viking fair.

The credit says it was taken in Denmark. I would like to know what city or site this is. My guess would be: Lindholm Høje, but I am not at all an expert.

The image is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vikings_fight.JPG&oldid=355001564

Thanks, Mike Smith. Please respond by email: (mesmith9@asu.edu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmith9 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that was so long ago that I don't really remember the exact location ... Lindholm Høje may be the location, or close there. --Tone 09:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Game Grumps serial

[edit]

Hey, I'm not a wiki member however I have had the Game Grumps Wikipedia page favorited on my computer for ages. It shows that you deleted it, without a reason given as to why. It was very in-depth on the exact dates when the videos were published all the conception of the YT channel, and had the episodes separated by "eras" as they are called. I'd like to ask that it be restored, as it was very valuable to the understanding and documentation of this staple of the internet, whether good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4970:8910:E8BC:51F1:A1F5:7C6B (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see the article just fine - are you talking about some specific related article? --Tone 10:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure

[edit]

You did not explain your reasoning to choose outright "Delete" rather than "redirect" in your recent closure of AFD. Even the original deletion nomination called for redirect. I argue that outright deletion is just wrong, by Wikipedia policies. This is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cargo airlines of Bangladesh, which you closed "Delete". Could you explain yourself, and/or perhaps revert your closure. --Doncram (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the argument "it has come to my attention that there is no other "List of cargo airlines of [country]."" that convinced me. In which case the redirect makes little sense as an unplausible search term. I should have elaborated, indeed. --Tone 10:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am wondering why you chose the minority opinion on this AfD. 9 editors favored deletion and 4 favored a redirect and the nominator said he could !vote for it. So at 9-5 favoring delete you chose to redirect. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were some comments that some of the content is potentially mergable, that is why I kept the content. It can be deleted at some point, I agree. --Tone 10:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Chaudhary

[edit]

Hello! Sorry to bother you. Actually, I am wondering if it's possible to restore and move it to draft namespace. So, I can work on it. Thank you for your consideration! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, restored and moved. Happy editing :) --Tone 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :) Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punished for being a father

[edit]

Hello Sir or Madam, ver The above mentioned page was deleted by you. Though the number of votes for deletion were higher than for keep, those votes just cited wiki policy without explaining its relevance to the article in question. In the AFD, I gave my reasons why the article should be kept per Wikipedia policy. Those points were not rebutted. Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your decision to delete it.

Regards, Akash Dixit. Wilkn (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

Hi, I see two problems. First, people who suggested deletion, stated the problem with notability, which you did not refute. Second, it seems you are the author of the book, which brings you into a conflict of interests. Therefore, I am staying with my decision. Regards, --Tone 08:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response.
Conflict of interests: What will be your thoughts if someone else other than me recreated the page? Please note - there were disinterested parties who did edit the page, giving it their signature of approval.
Notability: To my understanding, I did rebut the claim of notability by citing . Kindly, point me out the section in the purpose of Wikipedia wherein notability is defined or required. In the absence of any criteria, notability shall become a means to impose ones point of view in the direction that Wikipedia takes. I am reproducing the purpose of Wikipedia below for your convenience.
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.

Wilkn (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

Notability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, see WP:GNG. You provided no good references. Links to Amazon and other online bookstores are not appropriate. If someone else than you rewrites the article and addresses all the issues, this is fine - though I'd prefer this happens in draft space. --Tone 11:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference. I read it. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of notability. Per my reading, notability is one of the reasons for creation of a Wikipedia article. No where in the Wiki space is it written that notability is the *exclusive* parameter by which the creation of Wikipedia articles are created. The exclusive parameter by which Wikipedia articles are created is knowledge. There is an example that is given in the reference which shows that even a notable item, if it does not add to the knowledge of humanity is not a candidate for creation of a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, a subject matter that has not attained any significance in the media should be allowed to be an article if it adds to the overall knowledge of humanity. Again - Wikipedia's purpose is to *benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia.* Additionally, Wikipedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."
Quoting from the reference - "Article and list topics must be notable, or **"worthy of notice"**. Determining notability does [NOT] necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Emphasis added.
So the question that you as an admin and per the clearly enunciated purpose of Wikipedia should ask is - is the addition adding to the knowledge of humanity or not. Please let me know if you are convinced regarding that knowledge addition rather than notability is the criteria that should be used. If you are convinced I will have to still satisfy that having the page will add to the knowledge base of humanity. Just because notability is not a criteria does not mean my article should be added.

Wilkn (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

I still think you are missing the point. Wikipedia is built on secondary sources. The sources decide when something is notable, not you or me. If you find non-trivial coverage of the book (Amazon listing is trivial), that is fine. Otherwise, no. On the other hand, if you want Wikipedia to change its way of functioning, you will have to convince many more people. I am sticking with my decision. --Tone 14:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir or Madam - There is a contradiction between the cited source WP:GNG and what you are saying.
You say - "The sources decide when something is notable, not you or me."
Per WP:GNG - "Determining notability does [NOT] necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity."
The WP:GNG clearly says that popularity or fame or even importance does NOT determine notability. If a topic is not popular or famous then how can it have non-trivial secondary sources? My question to you is - you as admin regularly make decisions regarding keeping or deleting of articles. Are you basing your decision just on secondary sources? If yes, is that modus operandi per WP:GNG?
Wilkn (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]
True, popularity or fame or even importance does NOT determine notability. However, no sources also do not justify having an article. As an admin, I saw a very clear consensus to delete the article. If you disagree, you can start a WP:DRV, and continue the discussion there. I've said all I wanted. --Tone 17:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir or Madam - I am not worried about inclusion of article or not. I read your talk page even before I started the conversation. You appeared to me a person of logic. My opinion has, if anything, enhanced in that respect due to this present conversation. I, respectfully ask that we continue this conversation before and if we go to WP:DRV. It also your duty because as an administrator you should justify the reasoning behind your action. You have failed to carry out that responsibility. First you stated notability implied non-trivial citations. Now you are shifting the goal post and stating that "consensus" was the reasoning behind your decision. And despite bringing this new parameter at this late stage, you want to bail out of the conversation. I, respectfully, ask that we continue here until we are adding value to our arguments and not being repetitive. I till this point do not think you are being repetitive in arguments supporting your premise. Am I being repetitive in my arguments?
We both agree now that "popularity or fame or even importance does NOT determine notability." Then What does? Consensus? It little way up on your talk page it is written "Consensus is based on the weight of each argument, not the number of !votes." You agreed to this statement by stating "Controversial in a way that I was aware that many people would not like the outcome. Still, I considered the arguments."
So the question is, per your own stated policy above, did you consider the weight of each argument and the contents therein? If yes, what is your conclusion? Or in other words how do you conclude that there was a consensus regarding the deletion. Per the conversation, the no votes just stated what you stated above - that notability is determined by non-trivial citations. I disagree and presented my point of view regarding that. Nobody over there was able to rebut my arguments. Therefore, the controversy was inconclusive and your delete decision hurried.
Some of the readers/buyers of my book have expressed interest in weighing in on the discussion. As such, I respectfully ask that you reinstate the article and the AfD conversation so that that conversation can be carried to its logical conclusion. And so that you will have a clear and unambiguous reasoning to support your admin action. The discussion about delete was inconclusive, this discussion was inconclusive, then on what basis can we go to WP:DRV? If you can live with making a decision in which you are not able to clearly enunciate and support the reasoning - I can live with deletion of the article!
Respectfully! Wilkn (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]
What can we discuss further? There was a clear consensus to delete the article due to the lack of sources, I evaluated the consensus and deleted the article, and in addition you are clearly in a conflict of interest. If you disagree, start a DRV. I am ending this discussion on my side. --Tone 08:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification – April 2020

[edit]

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 10. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gojko

[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you closed discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojko Mrnjavčević as redirect without presenting arguments grounded in wikipedia policies. Will you please reconsider this decision having in mind arguments, not number of votes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again and I think I made a reasonable closure, based on the arguments presented. --Tone 23:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for either deletion or merge. I think that the decision was right. I will add the appropriate content in the following days to the Mrnjavčević article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy

[edit]
This one will not require a snow in a couple of hours, I can wait ;) --Tone 07:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2020 Zagreb earthquake

[edit]

On 27 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Zagreb earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 05:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Nascar aloe page

[edit]

Hi, it looks like this is you that have deleted the page about nascar aloe. I'd like to know if there is another. Otherwise I'd like to know why you deleted it. I hope you have a great day. bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louie666lol (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I cannot find it in the log, are you sure this was the title? --Tone 07:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2027 AFC Asian Cup

[edit]

Hi Tone. I think that the policies WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOR, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:GNG cited in the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2027_AFC_Asian_Cup) back in January 2017 no longer apply as there are now plenty of solid sources regarding confirmed bids and other planning for the tournament found with a simple google search. Paladisious (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, the deletion was 3 years ago, things change in time. There is already a draft for that article so you may continue from there. --Tone 07:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Tone, thanks for your quick reply. I've updated the draft, but cannot move the article into article space, what more can I do to get the page unprotected from creation? I thought you were the one to talk to about this, apologies if I'm wrong. Paladisious (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with drafts, someone has to decide it is time to move them to the mainspace. It will not be me, as I deleted it in the first place. But these things are done routinely, just give it time. --Tone 18:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content from previous Inky Gibbens page?

[edit]

Hi there! You recently closed a deletion discussion for Inky Gibbens. I was wondering if I could get access to the content on the now-deleted page? The discussion made me think the company, Tribalingual (rather than the person) is notable. So I'm thinking of drafting a page, but would rather not start from scratch. Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving it on my talk page! I appreciate it :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Krister Axel

[edit]

In January, my page of 10+ years was deleted. Some of the links were outdated, so I understand, sort of, but it did seem abrupt, and a bit harsh. Such is life, I suppose. Would you be so kind as to post the old page data to kristeraxel, where I might do some deep editing and resubmit? Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) --Tone 09:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi, thanks for your quick reply. I have edited the copy, and added relevant source links. I am going to publish the draft, although I am being warned that publishing content about myself is possible grounds for deletion; I have properly added the COI tag to my user page, and I am hoping that you might help me get this page published. I don't really know what else to do. I defer to your judgement. Best -

Krister

page here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Krister_Axel

Kristeraxel (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Draft process is a good way to address the potential issues before the article moves to the main space. --Tone 09:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2020 Zagreb earthquake

[edit]

On 28 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 Zagreb earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that part of the spire of Zagreb Cathedral broke off during a 2020 earthquake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Zagreb earthquake. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 Zagreb earthquake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Fells

[edit]

Sorry to see that you closed this as a delete. While there were technically three deletes to one keep, both I and Nfitz argued that this met WP:GNG without directly voting as the stub was properly sourced (especially after the relist.) We can keep articles which pass GNG even if the league the player was in fails WP:NFOOTY. If we made the mistake by not specifically mentioning that it met WP:GNG or !voting, that's fine, but I'm wondering if you could overturn your close to a no consensus? Cheers! SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'll follow the "when in doubt, do not delete". That was a borderline. No consensus it is. --Tone 19:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award shortlists

[edit]

Disappointed this was deleted with a 5-2 consensus. I felt most points and questions raised received no rebuttal or discussion beyond "not notable." There were 100+ citations and a wide range of coverage and commentaries from sources such as the Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, IndieWire' and Deadline.com spanning from the 1970s to 2020. Would you mind sending me the data? It may yet be salvaged for individual category pages. Thanks, Rburton66 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll post it on your talkpage. --Tone 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Marko Elsner

[edit]

On 20 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marko Elsner, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Aleksandra Kornhauser Frazer

[edit]

On 21 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aleksandra Kornhauser Frazer, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Enes Batur

[edit]

Hello Tone, I've just realized that the page Enes Batur, the biggest YouTuber in Turkey has been deleted with only 2 peoples opinion, as they mentioned that "there weren't any reliable sources about him to show his notability status". Firstly, there are lots of resources. A reliable source does not need to be in English per Wiki guidelines. The person in question is one of the most widely reported Internet celebrities in Turkey. He has been reported by Milliyet, Hürriyet, Sözcü etc countless times for his Internet content, legal battles and musical career.

I'm the editor that has written most of his article on tr.wiki. I know the English article was less developed and understand the sceptism of non-Turkish speaking Wikipedians, but I would love to contribute to it if you can take the deletion back. Thanks --Gogolplex (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well, too bad there was not more discussion. I propose the following. I can move the article to draftspace and then a third-party user moves is to mainspace if it is ok. Does this work? --Tone 15:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Iceland/archive1

[edit]

Have you had the chance to see the comments? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Enes Batur

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enes Batur. 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. Keivan.fTalk 06:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate the previously deleted page

[edit]

Hello Tone, i want to create a Wikipedia page entry about Marvin Matyka. Since there have been requests for deletions to the name in the past.

The result was delete. Tone 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brainoniel (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start the page from scratch, in the draft space. Then, it can be moved to main space. --Tone 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the answer. Update coming soon.. Brainoniel (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Generation Vocal Group from 70's

[edit]

Hi Tone, I went to start a page for the 70's Soul/R&B group Soul Generation, and a message came up stating that there was a page was started but removed or deleted with the similar name by your username. I am checking with you to see if I will be allowed to start a page for the group.

I am very passionate about preserving that 60's 70's and 80's Classic Soul/R&B groups and Soul Generation did have songs in the top 40 on Billboard's R&B Chart. Please advise, before I create the page.

Thank you.

(Vannessajg (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Can you be more precise which page was deleted so that I can have a look? I will be happy to help. --Tone 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting Morricone, - that was good to return to after half a day out! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ennio Morricone has been vandalized, and needs a rollback. Grimes2 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Madison Cawthorn

[edit]

Hey Tone, I'm curious why you closed the AfD on Cawthorn as redirect when it appeared that no consensus was reached? Last month, I noticed that a far-less notable political nominee Jo Rae Perkins survived her AfD although it was apparently closed by a banned user. I'm just really confused by it since Lauren Boebert, Jamaal Bowman, and Mondaire Jones all have extremely similar notabilities to Cawthorn yet Perkins (also similar) was kept and Cawthorn was redirected. I'm not sure what to do with regards to Boebert, Bowman, or Jones if there's no clear standard. Like, do I even bother to work on their pages now. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain if or what the nuance(s) might be? Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was the best outcome of the discussion, considering all the arguments. I cannot comment on other AfDs here ... --Tone 06:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not sure that was the correct close, sorry. While AfD is not a vote, the majority of users went for keep. Most of the Delete votes used an arbitrarily high standard for inclusion for political candidates. It is higher than GNG, WP:N for reasons unknown. Additionally, there were only a few Redirect votes so I'm not sure how that would be the consensus. Perhaps a DRV is in order. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I view a redirect as a soft alternative to deletion, as it can be brought back easily when the issues are fixed (e.g. election). And I was looking at the arguments, not at the numbers. If you feel that a DRV would provide a different outcome, go ahead, I'll be neutral. --Tone 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. I agree that a redirect is preferable to deletion, but I have started a DRV. Best. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Charles Okpaleke

[edit]

Greetings Tone, if you notice, I thanked you on the talk page link here because I believe it is wrong to for another user to recreate a deleted page without contacting the user who deleted the original page. In the short time I have spent on wikipedia, I have learnt that. I also have seen the great work you have been doing. I will like to recreate the page Charles Okpaleke having researched and got some reliable sources. I just watched his film on Netflix and searched him on wiki only to find out he has no wiki page. Charles Okpaleke produced the movie LIVING IN BONDAGE: BREAKING FREE which happened the be the highest grossing film in Nigeria in 2019. It also has won the biggest awards on the African continent. How can you help me to create this page? I will be excited to create it because he is one of the most searched celebrities in Africa. Thank you again for all the works you have been doing. MarkCarey911 (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone/Archive_24&oldid=1015226379"