User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions

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

Deletion discussions[edit]

Notifications[edit]

Alberta[edit]

Hi Andrew, for what reasons are you removing the prods of this non-notables after the minimum seven days? Hwy43 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the articles seem to have merit, of course. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So a PROD notice can be removed in the time between the expiry of the seven days and an administrator processing it? Hwy43 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Even if the article were deleted, I could have it restored per WP:PROD, "Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion. " WP:PROD also explains that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It therefore does not seem appropriate for such articles which seem to be good faith entries on which significant effort has been expended. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Though disappointed, I appreciate the explanation. Hwy43 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Althea McNish[edit]

I noticed some comments earlier about deprodding. There is no need to wait for the 7 days. Anyone admin or not can remove a prod at any time. The only practical way to question the removal is AfD. (unless there;s a valid Speedy on a separate issue like copyvio) DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're active in this,which is why I left the note-- I left this as a response to the comments at the top of this page, if you want to move it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California–Japan relations[edit]

Hi. Do you ever make a policy-based argument at AfD? You've been an editor for some time so I'd like to understand why you !vote the way you do at AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My arguments at AfD are usually based upon our deletion policy, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you suggest that we keep and improve articles that do not meet notability criteria? Do you think WP:N shouldn't exist? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such questions are best discussed at the talk pages for the relevant policies and guidelines. Likewise, we have a discussion for the topic in question and so this one seems superfluous. Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I started the conversation here because I take issue with your AfD behavior particularly. I'm asking for your explanation which should not be hard for you to provide. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Inn[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you pulled down the PROD but did not respond to the issues raised in it or make any improvements in the article. Can you point to any in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources for the subject required by GNG and GEOFEAT? I and a number of other editors have not been able to find much. See this discussion. I saw you posted some generic source search links but while those yielded no shortage of pormotional hits and a very few short blurbs, I don't see the kind of serious coverage required by GNG. Of course you may have found something that we missed. If so please let us know. Absent some serious RS coverage I suspect the article is likely to be sent to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a state secret? I'd rather not trouble people with an AfD if you can respond to the issues raised. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian communism[edit]

As you participated in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious communism, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian communism. Graham (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility testing[edit]

Regarding your removal of my PROD tag on Compatibility testing, I understand that you're a proposed-deletion patroller. Please note that all PROD tags say, "Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." I read Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling, but still don't see any criterion for which the article needed to be deprodded (i.e. what I did wrong).

Furthermore, I feel slightly offended by your flyby tagging the talk page {{Friendly search suggestions}}, because you aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. A lack of sources was not one of my reasons for prodding the article. In fact, I would never PROD purely for lack of sources; I'd use {{Unreferenced}} or find sources myself. I hope you're not going around removing PROD tags with the attitude that the prodding editors just need to fix everything themselves.

Lastly, it's hypocritical to tag a talk page with, "Did you know that you can help make this article even better?" and then not help make the article any better. If you have an idea of how to salvage that sorry excuse for an article, please, by all means, contribute! – voidxor 07:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The {{oldprodfull}} tag was placed on the article's talk page to record the failed prod. The {{friendly search suggestions}} tag is a general resource which I place on the talk page of most articles that I engage with, including those that I start or work on myself. If you wish to discuss the further development of the topic, please do so on that talk page as others are likely to have an interest in the topic too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting the addition of the {{Oldprodfull}} tag. However, the PROD only "failed" because you removed (contested) it. Specifically, your work as a proposed-deletion patroller implies an issue with the PROD itself (though I don't think I'm guilty of any of the common mistakes). I'm still waiting on a reason for that. That's why I came to your talk page—not to discuss the development of the article. – voidxor 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1 (board game)[edit]

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula 1 (board game). Success. -Arb. (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo[edit]

May you explain why you de-prodded Galileo's objective lens and Galilean compound microscope.Winged Blades Godric 13:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say your genius is unbounded.Winged Blades Godric 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush vomiting incident[edit]

I was just looking through my userpage to see what was new in the politics wikiproject and checked out the AFDs. Your comments on this one strike me as disruptive and failure to assume good faith, which is disappointing from a veteran editor. Just wanted to let you know that I didn't think you accusing the nominator of being disruptive without supporting evidence was okay, and I want to politely warn you to not cast aspersions again. Thank you and have a good day. Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no issue with your quoting of policy and reasoning as to why the nomination is wrong. I actually agree with a lot of what you said. The only thing I took issue with is when you called the nomination disruptive, which strikes me as failure to AGF. It's not a huge deal but I just wanted to politely let you know that I didn't see anything wrong with the nomination in terms of intent. Jdcomix (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Goodson[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ivor Goodson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivor Goodson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Jane Frizzle[edit]

Andrew, you may want to discuss the notability of Jane Frizzle with User:Andrew Gray, per our discussion @ User talk:Dirtlawyer1#Jane Frizzle. I requested the other Andrew's input regarding the subject's notability before PROD'ing it. My WP:BEFORE search suggested the subject would probably not satisfy the GNG criteria for inclusion, but if you believe otherwise and want to take a crack at finding the additional significant sources required to keep it, I will defer from nominating it for AfD review. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Topics are best discussed at their talk pages, so that all editors may participate and see what is said. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of British engineers[edit]

Please see my note at Talk:List of British engineers. Is this what you have in mind or are you proposing a list of engineers who already have Wikipedia pages as in List of Cornish engineers and inventors? Biscuittin (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made a brief comment there but think it's best to keep the discussion centralised at the AFD, while it's open. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed, in principle, to move List of British engineers and their patents to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers. Is this OK with you? Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm rather busy right now but will respond at the discussion in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there have been no objections, I intend to move the page tomorrow, 28 Nov 2015. Biscuittin (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the warning. I have commented at the discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has suddenly been deleted. I have re-created it at User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers but the edit history has been lost. What do you want to do about List of British engineers? Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position has not changed. We just have more tiresome process to go through. Andrew D. (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial romance films[edit]

Hey Andrew, the AFD mentioned above turned into a bit of a mess. Someone made a non-admin SK closure on it, then when I suggested that was an inappropriate action, they opened a second AFD on it. If you want to comment on the new AFD, it's here. Townlake (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting the article. I've gotten started with some of the references there so if you'd like to chime in go for it. :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 328[edit]

Hi, when you contributed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 328, you did not sign a comment that you placed at the same time. Would you be kind enough as to sign it, please. Many thanks. Nordic Nightfury 08:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Nordic Nightfury: there already is a signature from Andrew there, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. Class455 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Class455 It is referencing a comment made by him regarding a source on the page - re a driver being injured by a shotgun. Nordic Nightfury 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian museums[edit]

Hi, thank you sooo much for defending most of my articles about Malacca/Malaysia in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Malaysia

I know it's not easy to write a full & complete information, with significant coverage from something that didn't exist before. That's why I guess we have Wikipedia to let the world knows that not only big things exists (e.g. United States, Europe, Obama), but smaller things which count thousands around us. Of course, due to the much smaller size of Malacca, things are 'smaller' here. Same like in Singapore, things are relatively smaller, but they do have almost complete articles on everything that exist there in the country.

I'll do my part in findings more information about those articles. If you can provide more information for the article, you are more than welcome to do it! (please do so T_T) It's not easy at all to find news resources from the internet, must go to visit each of that place to get extra info. At least I've written the name, native name, photo, coordinate, history, some of its exhibition/architecture info, opening time, make its wiki common page, include them into category etc. Even to get the photos of such places, I need to travel far away by car just to get 1 photo. It's not an easy thing at all. Of course since this is the beginning of the article, I only provide the minimum required information needed for it to be an article. Once the article is there, it will be much easier for other people (who knows more info of the subject) to add more information to it.

Chongkian (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chongkian:. You're welcome. The key thing you need to do is contribute to the current discussions about these articles. If you need any help understanding how to do that, please ask. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melee[edit]

There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Infantry[edit]

The point is Andrew, it is highly unlikey that the AfD will be closed as "please expand enormously" or anything like that. It is not the place to discuss content issues; the decision is likely to be just "keep" or "delete". I was not trying to suggest the that a discussion should be started right now. I was just trying to give you a heads up that the material you were suggesting reverting to was actually previously deleted at AfD, and because of that, you might not want to restore it unilaterally. If you can't just say "thanks for the info" and instead throw a pointy essay at me, then I wish I hadn't bothered. SpinningSpark 22:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider what's said in basic training... Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...doing something constructive at once is better than figuring out the best thing to do hours later."

— Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Nawabpur Road[edit]

If you have a reference for "It's the busiest road in the capital city of this country." it'd be good to add it to Nawabpur Road. -Arb. (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitic religion[edit]

Thanks for your interest in protecting articles from arbitrary deletion, but in the case of Sinitic religion there was a discussion under way that the unexplained removal of the prod disrupted -- the prod invites editors and removing it closes them off.

The template instructs that it is good to edit the article to meet the objections, not to remove the template.

You, of course, are more than welcome to participate in the discussion, but it would be most useful if you informed yourself of the issues and looked at the other articles, esp. Religion in China and the TalkPage there. You will see that there are issues of policy involved, which I will not discuss here, since the various parties are not represented. Cheers in any case. ch (talk)

  • @CWH: You are quite mistaken. The template states emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." This is further explained at WP:PROD, "Any editor ... may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." It is therefore the replacing of the tag which is improper, not its removal. See also WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed mistaken. However, the policy does state that to remove the prod template, an edit summary explanation must be given, which it was not. As in the discussion with voidxor of Compatibility testing (below) I would suggest that driveby deprodding does not help the development of good articles. Deprodding made it harder for interested editors to know about and join the discussion.
I also note that WP:WPPDP says
The lure of theory: Don't deprod an article just because in theory, someone somewhere would object to its deletion. If you don't actually believe an article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, there's no reason to deprod.
Respect established editors....seasoned, experienced editors are likely to already know about it: in those cases, consider leaving a personalized message, or just not leaving a message to the prodder....
We are not the only line of defense against inappropriate deletion via WP:PROD. ....an administrator [is] supposed to look at the article and make sure the prod is valid....
That all said, I applaud and admire your service in preventing careless deletions. I'm a member of the "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians" and someday may need your support! I am only objecting to this particular move for inhibiting discussion. Happy New Year in any case. ch (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skill set[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Skill set is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skill set until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. South Nashua (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wetted surface[edit]

You removed the proposed deletion template from Wetted surface. Do you believe that, given the various contexts in which this term is used, that a single meaningful article that goes beyond just the basic definition can be developed? The term is used in various disciplines (aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, hydrostatics, etc), but in all cases, it just means the surface area of an object that is in contact with the working fluid. The ramifications of the term are different for each discipline, and must be discussed within the context of the discipline. I don't believe a single article can go beyond the basic definition without uselessly reproducing information that is already developed elsewhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The merits and development of the topic are best discussed at its talk page so that others, including its first author, may observe and participate. Note that I started the talk page and placed links to relevant sources there. Naturally, I checked these myself in the course of my action; I am always careful to check my ground. Please note also that the PROD process is only for uncontroversial cases and "must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". It should therefore not be used upon an article which has been newly created in good faith and, in this case, the article had only been created for 27 minutes. Such action is contrary to our behavioural guidelines such as WP:BITE and WP:DISRUPTION. Andrew D. (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinzira fort[edit]

Hi Andrew, I noticed you de-PRODed Zinzira fort without giving a reason. I'm assuming the article is not an intentional hoax, but it is a fantasy. There is no such structure as that described in the article. That's why it has never cited a source, and probably why it was speedied as soon as it was created. Did you want to see the article renamed and rewritten about something that does exist (and if so, what), did you just want it to go to AfD to be seen by more eyeballs, or ... ? Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a link which shows some photos of the place. Note that the name seems to be transliterated in different ways, including Zinzira and Jinjira. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've adjusted the coordinates accordingly (as explained in the PROD, the palace is nowhere near and has nothing to do with Zinzira, Biralia Union, Savar Upazila) and added a tertiary source. You are correct, Bengali has been transliterated a number of ways. In addition to Wikipedia's overarching naming guidelines, WikiProject Bangladesh uses WP:BDPLACE as guidance, which would name the the ruin Jinjira Palace, as you have done. Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_World_Heritage_Site[edit]

If you have any qualms as to my close at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?, you may find WP:AN to be a more suitable venue than WP:TfD.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion in question has now been closed as there being no consensus to delete. The RfC and the wider Wikidata issues are now being considered by Arbcom and there's more RfC to come. These seem the most suitable forums now. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers[edit]

Category:Manufacturers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpbT go beyond 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osterley Television Centre[edit]

I don't know why you removed my proposal for deletion or what to do about it. Griffindd (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases and it has now been terminated. You are not expected or required to do anything more. Andrew D. (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pension hotel[edit]

While there is no requirement for any explanation when removing a PROD, it would be helpful if you could leave some clue for other editors beyond "(remove prod)" so that they can know your reasons. Thanks. PamD 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomic[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metacomic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metacomic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circle time[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Circle time is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle time until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako[edit]

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ductwork[edit]

The PROD was removed with no improvement whatsoever. Nothing changed. For eight years this has been a wonderful article, but it's not encyclopedic. It is the original research of what appears to be one individual without as much as a single reference. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prod process is not an article improvement service and it's only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. I have opposed the proposal because it seems likely that there are alternatives to deletion which we should prefer per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parks[edit]

Could you please explain why you have deWP:PRODed several articles about non-notable municpal parks such as Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas). If you are going to mass-deprod articles, it is strongly encouraged that you "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that you don't' have to leave an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. And I am asking you now, if you would please explain your reasoning. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." You should please expect opposition in such cases and so not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and pasting isn't helping here. I don't know if you're trying to make a statement that you think the WP:PROD process should never be used. But what, I'm specifically asking you why in your opinion these articles should not be deleted. We'll take it one at a time. Why in your opinion should the article Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas) not be deleted?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PROD process for that topic has now terminated. The PROD process does not start or provide for a discussion because it is only for uncontroversial topics. If you're expecting a discussion you should therefore not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically refusing to answer my question. I don't see how a small municipal park is a controversial topic. Your refusal to discuss leads me to believe you were deproding articles in bad faith. Presumably because you object to the existence of the WP:PROD process.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was not clear to you that deletion of municipal parks is controversial, I trust that you now understand this. Please do not use the PROD process for such topics as it is pointless; a waste of time. Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict){(talk page stalker)@Rusf10:, please don't assume bad faith like that. There's nothing wrong with you PRODding the article, as you expected it was uncontroversial. However, the PROD process states that anyone who objects may de-prod an article, and therefore it is now a controversial deletion. Andrew Davidson objects, presumably because he believes the topic is notable. I have my guesses as to why, and he may be right, but I don't want to put words in his "mouth". So, if you believe the topic is not notable, nominate it for AfD, where a civil discussions about the merits of the topic, or lack thereof, should take place. Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26:Why should anyone have to guess why he believes this is a controversial topic, when I've asked him his reasoning multiple times? He just refuses to answer and that why it is difficult to assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters that another editor believes the topic to be notable. It is therefore a controversial deletion. As you stated earlier, he is not required to give a detailed explanation. For what it's worth, and this is only me talking, deletion of geographic features are rarely considered uncontroversial. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to make sure, you ask how a municipal park is a controversial topic. If you mean that literally, you mis-understand the instructions. It isn't whether or not the topic is controversial that matters, it matters if the deletion of the article is controversial. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions)!
This was all I was asking Andrew for. It wasn't that difficult of a question to answer, was it? Although I do disagree with you because a park is not a natural geographic feature like a mountain or a lake, it is a man-made designation.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supid Bose[edit]

Is there any chance you posted the wrong link in your AfD comment? That article appears to be about an advertising executive named Dave Linne :) Thparkth (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I see it now. Obviously the article does talk about him so I was wrong to call you out on it. All the same it's pretty weak in terms of establishing notability - only a few paragraphs in the article are about him. Thparkth (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. In any case, I went on to find another source: 2009 2010 Class of White House Fellows. When people like Michelle Obama are bestowing such honours, it seems absurd to claim that the recipients are not notable and notability doesn't actually seem in dispute. The nomination seems to be a blatant case of WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Beer Cup[edit]

Please can you explain why you have removed a PROD in future, eg: here. As it stands, that article is little more than advertorial and, of course, press releases from the "winners" and organisers do not count towards notability, so I am at a bit of a loss regarding your rationale. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:PROD, one contests a prod by removing it. That terminates the process and so it does not provide for discussion. If you wish to discuss the article's flaws then this is best done on its talk page, where the other editors who have worked on it may comment too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that you don't have to explain. I was asking you please to do so instead of being uncollaborative. Your constant resort to lawyering is wearing and disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)[edit]

Hi you deprodded the above article but without explaining why in your edit summary. I was wondering why you deprodded it. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's a shame because by not using an edit summary you open the debate. And Deprod says quite clearly "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."
This would have avoided this exchange especially as I still don't know why you deprodded and there was no debate or negotiation already going on so no reason to invoke revtalk. Domdeparis (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Merry Go Around[edit]

Why did you delete the proposed deletion for List of Batman storylines?

  • That is the way one contests such a proposal. Per WP:PROD, "Any editor ... may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so please explain why you object on the link provided otherwise why remove the proposed deletion template. Matt14451 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Jazz in Africa[edit]

Would you explain why you deprodded the Jazz in Africa article? Thanks. Your opinions that jazz started in Africa and that jazz bands exist today in Africa are, at best, beside the point when it comes to creating or deleting articles, i.e. notability. Notability relies on sources. Are there enough independent, reliable sources to create an article of substance about the subject? That's what we base our subjects on. Not whether something is a good idea, whether something is true, or whether it ought to be an article because it sounds important and might be developed by someone somewhere down the road.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain why you deprodded The Alberts, The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, The Temperance Seven? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not using No Swan So Fine's opinion as a justification for your actions. He was not only insulting, he was wrong. It's certainly odd to accuse an editor of editing as though it were something terrible. But that situation is irrelevant to this situation. When I do an internet search and I find few or no sources for an article, I consider that an uncontroversial proposal for deletion. I don't expect opposition for such an article in such a situation. It's both courteous and a WP rule that a person leave a reason for deprodding an article. If you have sources for that article, that's great. Go ahead and add them. I'm certainly not stopping you from working on that article to improve it. There's no reason why you shouldn't answer a simple matter of fact question like "Why did you deprod this article"? I don't know why. That's why I'm asking. I have no ulterior motive. Our reasons for doing things on Wikipedia are rooted in the rules of Wikipedia and, I hope, in common sense, courteousness, and rational discussion. What's the alternative? Arbitrariness. People doing whatever they damn well please. I'm sure you would not want that if the tables were turned. Please consider your replies more carefully. Please give a reason for deprodding articles per WP documentation. Thank you for replying. Cheers, mate.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of megaprojects in India[edit]

Andrew, would you mind explaining why you removed this? The article is the very definition of junk: it consists, essentially, of one sentence, an unattributed quotation that appears to define "megaprojects", though not in an Indian context, and one "sourced" entry whose source actually uses "mega project" apparently in a more general sense of "large project". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:DEPROD, removal of a prod is the way that one objects to it. The particulars of the topic are best discussed on its talk page where the creator has already started discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DEPROD also says You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] [e]xplain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page: if you are asked to provide an explanation, and refuse to give one, that implies you don't have a good-faith one, or are deliberately playing your cards close to your chest so you can throw out an argument five or six days after an AFD is opened and no one responds, so the AFD can be closed as "no consensus". It would be better for all involved if you explained why you think the article is valid before the AFD so your concerns can be appropriately addressed -- better for everyone but you and perhaps the article creator (who made a bad call by leaving the article in the mainspace as is) in that, if convincing enough, maybe your reason could stop an AFD from being opened in the first place, and better for everyone else in that if your reason is not convincing then it can be addressed upfront by the opening AFD comment; presumably you consider your reason to be convincing, so the former would apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably also bear in mind that while there is no broad community consensus that editors in general are required to provide a reason for deprodding, there was a pretty strong consensus here that you specifically should provide a reason when you deprod, or potentially face sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain this? at the same time? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if you had to explain at ANI? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roxy' prod was removed because this is the way that one objects to the proposal. The template states clearly that a detailed explanation is "not required". In any case, no deletion reason for the proposal was provided, just a vague direction to "See Rope", and so there was no case to answer. Note also that the template states emphatically that "If this template is removed, do not replace it" but Roxy has done so in violation of the WP:PROD process. Roxy should please read templates and their instructions more carefully before placing them. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ANI it is then. see you. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See "TBAN and Block Needed" at ANI, which concerns you. Thanks -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers[edit]

When you get a moment could you explain your rationale for removing the PRODs? No rush, but it'll be helpful to know if there's a logical reason for their removal. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • CAT:ALLPROD has been swamped with cricketers lately and, as I patrol this, I have been reviewing them. Typically, the concern is that the cricketer did not play first class cricket but the article says otherwise. There is therefore some dispute about the status of these cricketers. The WP:PROD process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." The proposals therefore seem improper, especially at this time of year when editors are likely to be busy. As the articles seem quite historical in nature, there seems to be no pressing reason to delete them and so our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Please consider alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. I don't suppose you know off-hand if there's a limit on the number of articles to bundle at AfD do you? Fwiw none of them played first-class cricket - I'll make that absolutely clear on any future PRODs. The original claim was made by someone who was trying to single-handedly re-classify the definitions. But it's no great shakes to wait for the AfD process.
If there's any guidance as to the number of PRODs which is appropriate at any one time and/or the best time of year to add them then I'd be grateful for that information as well. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article first-class cricket explains that the term "was used loosely before it acquired an official status, effective in 1895" and so, for such historical cases, the status of the cricketers will be debatable. As explained, the prod process is therefore not appropriate for such cases. As for AfD, please see WP:BEFORE. There's another 30+ of these things to do still but it's quite a chore and I'm off to bed now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Please can you give a reason when removing cricket PRODs? The reason these aticles are PRODed has been stated as the articles claim the subject has played at first-class level, when they have not, or are simply first inital and surname - it's dubious whether some of these people even existed as the sources as so old and often duplicated. Tagging Blue Square Thing as you've also noticed these articles aren't all they claim to be! StickyWicket (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue this down here. I'd strongly suggest that there's a clear case for uncontroversial deletion here. The articles we're choosing are very clearly ones where there has been no retrospective first-class status given to the matches and no chance it ever will be and, in most cases, we're selecting initially at least articles where we have either just a surname or a surname and initial. If you consider the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page (MCC cricketer) (2nd nomination) it seems clear to me that the articles we're PRODing are in the same ballpark and that's a not at all controversial delete.
These aren't articles that can ever be developed and are very, very clearly not notable - because we're selecting the ones that very clearly fall into that category for PROD. There are others which, although there still isn't a first-class match played, we have some biographical details for. Some I think we might be able to show notability for, others I'm less sure about.
In this case - given the articles we've (independently) selected - I'd actually very strongly suggest we allow the PRODs to go through - there's not really a case that any of the names are viable search terms to use a redirect for and there really aren't problems to fix to apply WP:PRESERVE - there's nothing we'll be able to discover about these chaps other than their names which are essentially culled from Haygarth's scorecards (so all we have is a surname on a scorecard to work with). Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankle flare[edit]

Can you explain why Ankle flare should not be deleted? Natureium (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is an important and significant symptom. The topic should be developed not deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice[edit]

Tone is difficult to track in internet communication, so I would like to clarify (possibly unnecessarily) that this was not intended as a criticism. Rather, if I had seen that someone had removed a prod from an article I had been discussing, I would want to know whether or not the remover had said anything related to the discussion, and so I provided this information to others. (I have no particular feelings about what to do with the article.) --JBL (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joel B. Lewis: It may help to understand that I am a prod patroller. My practice is to look through all the pending prods and remove the prod tags from the topics that seem to have merit or potential. I commonly do this in the same terse way but the people who placed the prod often complain that I didn't provide more detail. In my view, they misunderstand the process, which is not a discussion but the placing and removing of a tag. This is supposed to be uncontroversial so, if discussion is needed, prod is not the right process. Your language was similar to that used in other cases but I took no great offense from it and so we're good. The important thing is that the topic continues to develop and that seems to be happening now. My main surprise is that the maths project was not able to take care of this more expeditiously. My impression is that maths articles are quite isolated from the Wikipedia mainstream and so its editors may be weak on such processes. Please feel free to consult me if you should want assistance or a second opinion with any other case of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, the reason the people who placed the prod [and lots of others] often complain that [you] didn't provide more detail is that when the article comes to AFD you often make counter-policy arguments that, had you already made them in an edit summary as policy strongly urges you to do (and a large swath of the community thinks you in particular should be specifically required to do), could have been refuted in advance rather than taking up valuable space in an AFD discussion that is liable to become WP:TLDR and closed as "no consensus" otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context and chronology may help in considering this in retrospect. The topic in question is mathematical practice.
13 Sep 2018: JamesBWatson proposed that the article be deleted. The reason stated was "Unsourced article which reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. There does not seem to be much coverage of this topic per se, and its validity was questioned 15 years ago, and not clarified since." AFAIK, JamesBWatson took no further part in the matter. My impression is that they were going through category:Articles lacking sources.
14 Sep 2018: David Epstein started a discussion at WikiProject Mathematics. This petered out on 15 Sep until
18 Sep 2018: Andrew Davidson removed the prod and updated the article's talk page with relevant templates.
19 Sep 2018: Joel B. Lewis updated the discussion with news of the prod removal and notified Andrew Davidson on his talk page. That's this section here which JBL initially titled WPM – presumably short for WikiProject Mathematics. Andrew Davidson retitled this as "Best practice" to provide more context and as somewhat of a pun.
19 Sep 2018: Arthur Rubin started a deletion discussion: Articles for deletion/Mathematical practice. There was also a related discussion at the ARS rescue list.
21 Sep 2018: GeoffreyT2000 closed the deletion discussion as "keep per WP:SNOW".
Some improvements of the article were made during the discussion but activity ceased soon after. The article is rated as Start class, This evaluation was made by NorthAmerica1000 who does not seem to be a member of WikiProject Mathematics. The evaluation is incomplete but that project has done nothing about this and so seems quite ineffectual.
Altogether, there were at least 23 editors involved in this matter: 7&6=thirteen, Andrew Davidson, Arthur Rubin, Cgolds, Charles Matthews, David Epstein, Dmcq, Enterprisey, GeoffreyT2000, GreenC, Hijiri88, JamesBWatson, Joel B. Lewis, Kind Tennis Fan, Mark viking, Mgnbar, NorthAmerica1000, Purgy Purgatorio, Spinningspark, Trovatore, Tryptofish, Tsirel, XOR'easter.
This seems inefficient per WP:LIGHTBULB. Better practice in such cases would be:
  1. An editor identifies an issue
  2. They fix it per WP:SOFIXIT
Andrew D. (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass prodding by Piotrus[edit]

If you remove WP:PROD notices en masse, please provide rationale that is relevant to each article, such as sources that suggest notability. Otherwise this can be considered WP:POINT=type of disruption. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. WP:POINT refers to insincere actions. Per WP:NOTPOINT, "editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree". So, Piotrus should please not accuse me of insincerity as my actions are made in good faith.
  2. WP:PROD is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Piotrus should not be using this process for these topics as opposition is to be expected.
  3. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, the onus is on the nominator to conduct searches for sources when they seem inadequate. WP:BEFORE specifies that "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." No evidence of such searches is being provided in these cases.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "per WP:DEPROD is unhelpful. If a deprod challenges notability or such, please use edit summary or talk to explain why an article is notable, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE and WP:BRD, the onus is on the nominator to start detailed discussion. WP:PROD is not an appropriate process for matters requiring detailed discussion as it is only for uncontroversial deletion. That's why it makes no provision for such discussion. If nominators need more help, see WP:INTROTODELETE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Royal Rock Beagles[edit]

Much appreciated if you could list where you obtained this  :File:Royal Rock Beagles by John Dalby 1845.png in the relevant field on the page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red 9 Aug 2014.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy notice that, per the discussion, this file now needs a fair use rationale (see directions on file page) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Turnstile[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Turnstile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Graph infobox[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Theresa Greenfield Knowledge Graph infobox.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee#Showcase articles[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrctions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. Non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) in the Wikipedia namespace, except in some very specific cases, which is why I have linked File:Agnata Frances Ramsay by Ida Baumann.jpg and File:Lucy Barbara Bradby.jpg being used repectively in Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/6 and Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/2. Perhaps you didn't notice the edit sums I left the first time I linked the files, so I'm posting here in more detail. If you have any more questions about this, you can ask me here or ask others for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should try reading your own gibberish as WP:NFEXMP states that "Article images may appear in article preview popups" and that was the nature of the usage. See also WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesters of Triskelion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gamesters of triskelion small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures with {{keep local}}[edit]

Hi Andrew,

why are you uploading your files with local copies?--B.Eichengreen (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — B.Eichengreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Maria Bitner-Glindzicz[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Bitner-Glindzicz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


daisybell.jpg[edit]

What was the motivation behind retaining a local copy? Arlo James Barnes 03:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on the Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

Main page: ANI megathread

MfD 5th nomination[edit]

I recognize you edit conflicted with me and my closing of the MFD, but would you mind reverting your edit that came after the discussion close? There's no further good that will come from litigating this issue in two separate places, and the nominator withdrew (albeit did not close) well before several other comments were made. WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @WaltCip: Thanks for closing this and it should stand as it is without further amendment. It takes some time to prepare such responses, getting the links and other evidence right. I spent about 10 minutes doing this and so some reasonable allowance should be made for this and the resulting edit conflicts. As I was responding to a personal attack, my considered comment should please stand per right of reply. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that is your right. I am only requesting it as a courtesy since I had reverted a further comment by Dronebogus that came after I closed the nomination. I'd deem it unfair to revert his post-comment but let yours stand, but also thought continuously reverting the both of you would make me appear petulant when I'm really just trying to keep the discussion centered in one place. WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes less is more. I could write pages about the various articles and issues raised but have been restraining myself. And I'm not planning to say much more today. Sufficient unto the day... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stars[edit]

The Socratic Barnstar
For your powerful ivote rationales Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The Teamwork Barnstar
Seed-counting machine. Good job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Sorry about that revert-- mis-click. Things are loading slow for me these days... Eddie891 Talk Work 20:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: No worries; I figured that it was accidental. Someone else did something similar recently and so I have WP:Rollback#Accidental_use_of_rollback at my fingertips. That has details of scripts or settings you can use to minimise this. I tried them after doing it myself some time ago and haven't done it since.
Otherwise, you were wanting to know more about the Into Darkness AfD where my rationale is essentially WP:SNOW. I didn't want to argue about it though as my main point is that we should stop digging. The discussion is due for attention soon and so it will be interesting to see if it gets relisted...
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll try that, thanks
I figured as much about Into Darkness-- It might be a good idea to !vote "SNOW Keep" in the future so it's clearer what you're suggesting-- technically speedy keep is only applicable when the specific criteria are met, as I'm sure you know. Regardless, best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

As I write, I can see an emerging consensus on ANI to topic ban you from some deletion activities. I haven't joined them yet, simply because unlike many editors there whose views I respect and who are calling for a ban, I might have to face you in real life at some point and justify my views in person. I've done this with RHaworth and it was unpleasant as hell to have to explain to somebody who I thought was a nice guy, why they should be desysopped, and I don't really want to go through that again. So I urge you to take a more tactful and conciliatory approach if you want to reply to any of the comments on ANI, otherwise I am certain you will get topic banned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first item in Piotrus' list was Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?. That was closed by you, Ritchie333, who said

    Most of the longstanding RfA participants have now had their say and there is a split of opinion over whether or not Andrew Davidson's conduct at RfA merits a topic ban. ...he should consider changing tact and reviewing the criteria of successful RfAs more carefully, otherwise he is likely to continue finding his votes being at best ignored and at worst yelled at.

That was in 2017 and, after digesting that, I decided to lay off from voting oppose and have not done so since early 2018, iirc. I've mostly abstained since, just casting a few support votes where it would have seemed churlish to do otherwise – people like RexxS, for example. So, I took your comments on board and changed my behaviour. Ok?
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about deletion activities, not RfAs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there is much more that can and will be said about other aspects. Thanks for your advice. The conversation now seems to continue on page 94. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned from deletion-related activities[edit]

Hello Andrew. As per this discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from deletion-related activities, which includes (but is not limited to) participating in AfDs or DRVs, or removing prods. As with any topic ban, you are welcome to appeal it at WP:AN after a reasonable time period if you feel you can convince the community that the issues which led to the ban are no longer relevant. Cheers, Number 57 15:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You Brits say "cheers" at the weirdest moments. EEng 22:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s just a couple of extra bullets to our cultural conventions. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Number 57: As you seem to be local and a long-standing editor, I am surprised that I don't recognise you; we must move in different circles. Anyway, this sanction seems quite broad. How would this work, for example, if one of my own creations were nominated for deletion (I have created hundreds of articles and redirects)? And I do some work like NPP – would I be able to nominate an especially nasty article for speedy deletion? And some activities such as moving pages can result in deletion. For example, if I load an image and the file name has a typo, I might move it to the correct title without leaving a redirect and this is technically a deletion. Cases like this don't seem to be what people were complaining about. Please advise. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to speak for Number 57, but I'll give you my advice.

  • If an article you created gets nominated for deletion, you can further improve it but you cannot take part in the deletion debate. You will have to hope other editors see your improvements and judge them to be satisfactory proof to keep the article. If the rest of the community decides it should be deleted, that's too bad.
  • I would expect you would be able to tag blatant and obvious vandalism per WP:G3 / WP:G10, as this is a standard exemption. As a rule of thumb, it should be something you would reasonably expect the creator to be blocked for.
  • I would assume that moving an image that you uploaded to be acceptable. Similarly I think putting {{db-g7}} on an page only you have contributed to to be acceptable.

All that said, the best advice I can give you is if in doubt, don't. Don't go anywhere near AfD, PROD, CAT:CSD or ARS. In fact, don't even look at any project space pages at all. Stay focused totally on mainspace and pretend the rest of Wikipedia doesn't exist. I think that's the best route to showing you can edit in a productive manner and show the community you can edit responsibly. Given a number of people have shown that sanctions against you have been suggested for at least ten years, I think it's extremely unlikely you will be able to think about an appeal any time soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm what Ritchie says, the topic ban would apply to articles you have created (as you do not have any kind of ownership of them), and speedy tags may be applied in the circumstances mentioned.
Moves without leaving a redirect would not be considered a deletion IMO (and you are welcome to use this statement if anyone ever complains about you doing so). Cheers, Number 57 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I have variously been "banned" from DYK and "commenting on the intentions" (or similar) of others. The former had a shedload of technicalities, like, "can I lodge an ERROR report"? But ultimately, now you're under this supervision, you need to do what Ritchie has said. If you don't, you'll stand a strong chance of being binned out of Wikipedia altogether. For me, I followed the "ignore at all costs" example at DYK and a year or two later had a prolific time there after requesting Arbcom to remove my ban. I proved to be a constructive editor. The "intentions" thing is less clear-cut and you appear to be crossing that threshold regularly, but that's for another day. Good luck working on mainspace articles! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're a much-loved treasure at DYK. Who'd have thunk it... Perhaps a similar avenue exists for Andrew at AfD, but it will certainly need to involve (a) keeping his head down for a while and not pissing anyone off, and (b) engaging properly with our notability guidelines, rather than just arguing to keep everything in sight just because it exists.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I think the topic ban is fully justified, if you want to appeal anything, I would recommend specifically appealing the deprod ban (which, in all honesty, is the only appeal you have a chance of winning at this point). Several of us who supported your TBAN specified that the deprodding itself wasn't the problem and that policy dictates that prods can be removed for any reason. The only thing deprodding does is force users to gain a consensus to delete a page (after all, prodding is for uncontroversial deletions only), so this sets an idiotic precedent. I think the prod ban is baseless and boils down to deletionists getting pissed at having to discuss their proposals instead of slapping a "delete this" sign onto a bunch of articles and walking away with easy deletions. Darkknight2149 20:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't mean that you should appeal in six months. I mean that if you went to AN (or potentially ArbCom) and argued that there wasn't a clear consensus for the deprod ban (specifically the deprod ban) and that there was no policy ground to ban you from removing prods, you might have a chance of getting that lifted if you approach it the correct way. Just don't go in arguing that you were innocent and the whole TBAN was unjustified. If you do that, any case you may have will go down in flames. Darkknight2149 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, the reason I included PRODs in my "vote" is because Andrew mass removed a bunch of my PROD nominations and then tried to use said removals as a reason for me to be blocked and my edits reverted. Which was clearly abuse of the system. He never gave a reason for the removals either and blew me off when I asked him for one. Otherwise, I might have been way less inclined to think the whole thing was bad faithed abusive behavior. It had nothing to do with me being pissed as a deletionist that I had to justify my proposals later or whatever. Ultimately I could really care less about him removing PRODs and I wouldn't have included it in my "vote" except for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't even think about appealing the dePROD ban, your unexplained dePRODs were among the many factors that led to the Tban. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prods are uncontroversial deletion only and can be removed for any reason (or no reason). And it was only a "factor" among some of you. Several of us specified that the deprodding wasn't a problem when we supported the TBAN. I don't see any policy grounds for a prod ban. Darkknight2149 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dePRODs were an important factor for many of us and the ban is for anything and everything related to deletion which includes dePRODs. Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that's not telling me anything new or specific in terms of reasoning. I honestly don't see any legitimate policy grounds for it, other than people being annoyed that a lot of their prods got removed (which is part of the process). If someone prods 20 different articles, all 20 get removed, and then they have to justify why all 20 individual articles should be deleted, then the system is working how it should on that front. If an article is obviously in need of deletion, then the correct template for that is Speedy Delete. Prods are exclusively for uncontroversial deletion, and the moment one person questions it, it becomes controversial. Prods are not a free "delete this" card and no one is entitled to a deletion. The prod ban (which only some users pushed for, I wasn't seeing a majority or consensus) feels more political than anything else.
That being said, being able to remove a prod shouldn't grant Andrew Davidson the ability to talk about the proposed deletion or participate in a deletion discussion. I think we can agree on that point. Deprodding and scrambling to improve an article is the only thing Andrew Davidson should be able to do with this ban in place. The only times a prod ban would be justified (that I can think of) are in situations of stalking a specific user and deprodding them for the sake of harassment, sock puppets of blocked users, WP:NOTHERE behaviour, or anything to that effect. Darkknight2149 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Deprodding and scrambling to improve an article is the only thing Andrew Davidson should be able to do with this ban in place." is incorrect, he can improve articles, but his tBan includes dePRODs, as stated in the original notice above "or removing prods". If you keep muddying the waters on this it will quickly be back at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no disrespect, but you still haven't provided any justification for a prod ban beyond a vague "Me and several others wanted it in place, so it should stay in place", which on its surface, reinforces my suspicion that the prod ban was purely political and not based on any policy. I'll conclude my end of the conversation by saying that if Andrew appeals the prod ban (nothing but the prod ban, mind you), I will openly support it. That's all I can really add. Darkknight2149 08:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated in the notice at the top "or removing prods". It is good that you acknowledge that there is a dePROD ban as your previous comment indicated that dePRODing wasn't covered by the ban. If Andrew appeals the dePROD ban I'm sure that many Users, including me, will oppose it. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask anybody to do anything for you, concerning the topics you're banned from. I reckon you'll be watched closely by many editors (likely those who've pushed for your t-ban), so be cautious. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

50 ways[edit]

Here's the first one. I have just been pinged by user:Melissa Highton. She's Director of IT at the University of Edinburgh and quite high-profile in UK Wikimedian circles. I have been working with her and others at recent online WiR events. At the last one, she expressed her surprise that someone could propose an article for deletion without any discussion. I said that I could help her with such cases and so she's contacting me because it has happened again. I had already noticed that PROD on my watchlist but didn't remove it, as I would normally, because of the current discussion at ANI. Presumably I'm now not allowed to even discuss this her on Wikipedia right? So you guys have got this, ok?

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why someone interested in creating and improving content would, at first impression, be alarmed that deletion can be proposed and implemented without discussion. However, if Highton were to spend a week reading the sort of garbage I generally see when working at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation and Wikipedia:New pages patrol, then she may understand why the PROD process is there. Moreso if she observed the contrast in quality between new creations and existing content, and the limited number of volunteers who dominate these overlooked, extremely backlogged processes. By "garbage" I am not referring to the work of any mature individual acting in good faith without a conflict of interest, but things like cryptocurrency gobbledygook, text that looks like a PR release put through Google Translate from English to Mandarin to Zulu to English, and creations by young children. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PROD process is for "uncontroversial deletion" – cases like accidents and blatant garbage. But the trouble is that's not how it is often used. As in this case, because this wasn't garbage, was it? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not contact her (on Wikipedia) or respond to her contacts (on Wikipedia), concerning or relating to the topics you're banned from, for goodness sake. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Andrew, this is a done deal mate. You had plenty of chances. You can't participate in these discussions now, but that was your own choice. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (PS as per your MO, of course I'd expect you to "clear" this out, but this is getting close to your last hurrah, so I felt obliged to bid you farewell and godspeed on whatever project you next subject to your methods, take care. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • It is very likely in your best interest to entirely disengage from anything and all things related to deletion (including on your own talk page here) lest you draw additional ire. If someone asks for your input, direct them to someone else whom you trust understands the processes and decline to assist them in deletion. Otherwise, it is going to look like finding loopholes on the ban (which this already does appear like). Simply put: Let it go. Move on and stop dwelling on deletion all together. --Tautomers(T C) 02:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banned from anything and everything related to deletion means banned from anything and everything related to deletion. If there was a consensus to allow exceptions there would have been exceptions allowed, but there wasn’t. The ban was explicitly meant to be as broadly made and construed as possible to prevent this sort of system-gaming loophole nonsense. The fact that you seemingly can’t be trusted with something as theoretically rote and uncontroversial as the PROD system was a major complaint during the discussion that lead to your ban. Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are contacted by another editor about a deletion related matter, you should simply say, "I cannot comment on this matter. Please ask for assistance at the Help desk or the Teahouse" without any further comment whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The community, by a pretty overwhelming margin, has gone on record with the stance that you cannot be trusted with making such judgments, and it would be a grave mistake to assume that because a handful of the three dozen editors supporting a tban weren't so sure on prods that the rest of us didn't mean exactly what we said. Cullen328's suggestion is a good one, and is equally useful in responding to Directors of Whatever at Universities of Wherever ... or to Just Plain Folks without titles to sling around. Ravenswing 11:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment less than 2000 edits does not a "high profile wikimedian" make. Do this sort of stuff again, and some people will be screaming for a permaban. I dont think that would benifit the project however, but please dont think us naive enough to not notice you pushing the bounds of your t-ban just after it was imposed. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg
Mural of Fredrick Douglas by Ross Blair. Photo by Melissa Highton presented to President Biden.
  • For details of Melissa Highton's impact, see here. For example,

    A picture I shared on Wikimedia has been given by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson as a gift to President Joe Biden. ... I took the photograph on an evening walk during lockdown just as the sun was setting. The mural is very close to the building where Frederick Douglass stayed while he was in Edinburgh. I shared it on Wikipedia so that more people could see it and enjoy it. ... The picture has had 1,200,000 pageviews on English Wikipedia since it was added to the Frederick Douglass page on 23 October 2020. My profile on wikipedia is here: User:Melissa Highton – Wikipedia

    Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual rule nowadays is "pics or it didn't happen". Here's Melissa's picture. (right). But you'd better copy it while you can as it's tagged for deletion too! Who's going to tell President Biden? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A piece of advice given to me by a wise editor when I needed to take a step back: "The burden is not all on your shoulders; others will step in to help carry the load." It can be difficult to stand by when Something Is Wrong On The Internet but I think I speak for the community when I say "Yes, we've got this". –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Proposals[edit]

Hello Andrew. Related to the earlier discussion, there is another discussion at ANI, this time regarding your contributions at WP:VPR. I do apologise if you are feeling targeted, but I thought the concerns raised were worth scrutinising. Number 57 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In as much as I support their tban, this is blatant witch hunting and quite unfair too I might add. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion, opened in good faith, closed nearly a day ago. It wasn't witch hunting nor unfair, just had no consensus. People who are topic-banned aren't immune to further scrutiny I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, I happened to just see it now. Yes they are open to further scrutiny but I suppose the timing is rather poor. Furthermore, no, from what I observe it had clear consensus. A WP:SNOW close easily substantiates that. Celestina007 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The timing, rather than being "rather poor" seemed rather apt. In any case, it's a done deal, showing up a day later to cry foul on something that was raised in good faith is poor form, so probably best to just call it a day now. It certainly seems like there is more to come here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the discussion was open for less than five hours and so I didn't get a chance to comment. The claim was that my "contributions at WP:VPR are always to oppose". This is trivially easy to refute – see this support or that support or another support, for example. But notice that neither the OP nor any of those commenting actually made this simple search so the quality of the fact-checking at ANI is abysmal. And the procedural process is awful too. One discussion is kept open for weeks while another is closed in a few hours. There's no due process.

But one mystery remains. Number 57 was put up to this saying that "an editor raised concerns privately". But the right to confront one's accuser is fundamental to the Anglo-American notion of a fair trial. ANI is not fair. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a snow close opposing any action against you unfair? I guess you could ask for it to be reopened. Would you hope for a different result? DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome is irrelevant. This was an anonymous personal attack and I was not given a right of reply. And the procedural point is that this was not an orderly process. Discussions should be kept open for at least 24 hours on time zone grounds alone. This is a general problem with ANI – bogus claims are made and snap judgments enacted, just depending on who happens to be around at the time. If it's well-orchestrated then the early responders will try to establish a bandwagon per groupthink. This is also seen at RfA where the candidate's supporters are typically primed to pile in immediately with a stack of supports so that opposers then seem isolated. This is Wikipolitics 101.
Now, that particular attack was not well-orchestrated and so it collapsed immediately. But as it was a new complaint, it should have been given a bit more time to examine the evidence, establish whether there was anything to it and what my position really was. As things stand, I'm now stereotyped as a "serial opposer" or some such nonsense. The complaint is then repeated and people then get the idea that there's something to it. See give a dog a bad name and hang him which explains the process.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to imagine that any lasting effect will come of the thread in question. Most of the people contributing there didn't see a problem with your actions at VPR or found them reasonable, and several gave active reasons why opposing almost all proposals might be a legitimate standpoint. One or two did opine that it was merely "not the right time" for such a ban to be considered, but to be honest I doubt those people had their opinion of you drastically changed one way or the other by that thread. Keeping it open would have been an exercise in pointlessness. And insofar as you have a right of reply, you've been exercising that right here on this page, and this can be noted as evidence if the issue ever crops up again.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Piotrus' detailed account of mudslinging which explains the process

one does not need to have done real mistakes to be a victim here. Often, what is framed as his past mistakes might have not been declared as such by a consensus: it's enough that one editor has called his action a mistake - a diff can be always dragged out of a context.

The end result, sometimes the end goal of sophisticated harassers, is to destroy the reputation of editor A, by creating an image of him among the community that he is "often criticized", leading to a mistaken impression that "if he is so often criticized, he must have done something wrong".

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you are not only unwilling to own up to your past behavior (namely that 25+ editors agreed that you were engaging in some combination of vote canvassing, incivility, and bombing AfDs with random no-effort “sources” to justify voting “keep” over 90% of the time) but also continuing to accuse everyone you don’t like of conspiring against you just because they hate you, is why you are indef topic banned. Dronebogus (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your renaming of this section to a personal attack on me doesn’t inspire confidence either. I’d think a topic ban would make you more wary of this sort of inappropriate behavior, but I can drag you back to ANI if you want to turn this into a personal grudge match. Dronebogus (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request – Articles for Deletion[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct at Articles for Deletion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request that you are party to, Conduct in Articles for Deletion, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators felt that the community had made progress toward resolving the dispute in the recently-closed ANI thread, making arbitration unnecessary at this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long[edit]

This talk page is way too long to navigate easily. The navbox is as long as a talkpage in and of itself. Maybe consider archiving it for other users’ benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, I can't speak for Andrew, but if I were in his position the last thing I would want right now would be you stopping by the harangue me about the length of my talk page. This is not a good look for you. If you want to reply to me, I'd suggest doing it in my talk page. Move along. Girth Summit (blether) 06:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’ve redacted the more snarky-sounding part out of civility and apologize for adding it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page isn't as long as User talk:EEng's page, and that one is immune from being shortened, so Mr. Davidson is quite within his rights to leave it as-is. 2A02:C7E:2DB:9600:38FE:3B3:8CF2:7C6D (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration cases have tight limits on posts to keep them under control. Here, I group topics to consolidate them and they eventually go to thematic archives. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

The Barnstar of Integrity
For your help, I appreciated it. Lightburst (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Efforts Are Appreciated

Hey, I just wanted to say how surprised and incredulous I am to see all the recent ANI drama you've had to deal with. I always enjoyed your arguments in AfDs and saw you as a good example of policy-oriented argumentation. You've clearly made enormous contributions to WP, and I hope this mess doesn't bring you down too much. Stay strong brother. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intrepidity in the face of adversity

Order of the Garter
Thank you for your service. Honi soit qui mal y pense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another ANI discussion[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Andrew_and_Lightburst_are_STILL_being_problematic

Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Robert Provan)[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson Thank you for defending the Robert Provan article, and if you'd be so kind, would you please review the Tim Lokiec article and its very complicated AfD? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. I tend to stay away from discussions of people I've never heard of as there are so many of them but if that case is complex, I'll see if I can help. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions&oldid=1152672029"