User talk:Music1201/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Please adopt me

Please accept me as your student in Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. Please reply soon Thanks. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 09:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nepali keto62: Unfortunately I'm busy with a few other things so I cannot accept at this time. — Music1201 talk 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination)

I don't think a NAC is appropriate here. I stated clearly why I thought AfDs 3-8 didn't apply (did you read through them?), and Wikipedia's standards on notability have evolved significantly since 2007. Also, a discussion that was open for seven days can hardly be "speedy kept." Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: My close was definitely valid. When notability guidelines change, articles that don't meet the new guidelines don't get deleted (otherwise we'd only have half the articles we do now). If notability was an issue, it would have been deleted years ago. I notice that some AfDs for the article also mention possible COI issues, please bring up those issues at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Music1201 talk 21:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you there. Listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 17#Railpage Australia. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What arguments.  A speedy keep is appropriate 15 minutes after the AfD is created, and by a NAC.  The word "speedy" is a synonym for "procedural", so the waiting for 168 hours has nothing to do with speediness.  Anyway, Keep is a valid result for WP:NOQUORUM.  Yes, the COI stuff that occurred ten years ago was off base.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Keep" might be a valid WP:NOQUORUM outcome, but it's very, very unusual. I can't say I've ever seen one, but it's a big project. You'll note that it's not listed as a sample outcome. In fact, all the sample outcomes point in the other direction: continuing the discussion to gain greater consensus, or simply doing what the nominator suggested (although obviously a soft deletion is accorded less weight). Regarding speedy keeps, I would invite you to review Wikipedia:Speedy keep and tell me which of the guidelines is in play here. The community does not accept your interpretation of WP:BEFORE and it is not a reason to throw out a nomination. Mackensen (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • True, I had to read WP:NOQUORUM before I understood why keep was a valid close.  But this is an unusual situation.  The closer did the homework that no one at the DRV is willing to match.  SmokeyJoe's essay on renominating makes the point that your badgering is disruptive.  It also has a link to an essay that says that relisting can be abused.  As for WP:SK, I've participated in editing the guideline, and my !vote was not a speedy keep.
    You wanted to engage a "Speedy close" !voter at the AfD, you've engaged the closer, you've engaged SmokeyJoe, and you have made multiple posts at the DRV, and now you are back here at the closer's page, yet why do you avoid the one place where your comments are recommended?  The worst that can happen is that no one will respond.  Can you consider withdrawing and planning to prepare a better nomination instead of trying to force your current work down our throats (the throats of AfD volunteers)?  The renomination essay says that after a keep, you should expect to wait six months, but I'll support dropping that to two months if you are willing to withdraw your DRV and give more attention to WP:BEFORE.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gruffudd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gruffudd. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

hi why did you remove my article? the sources were reliableMatintarkan (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Martintarken: Which article are you referring too? — Music1201 talk 15:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

tarkan(singer) personal life [1] [2] [3] Matintarkan (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ #http://www.haberturk.com/yasam/haber/1236384-bir-megastarin-evliligi
  2. ^ #http://www.milliyet.com.tr/nil-ozalp-tarkan-ile-iliskisini-haberler-1938363/
  3. ^ http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/portakali-elif-kapti-26739376


@Martintarken: I added your content. By the way, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged. — Music1201 talk 15:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

P2PTV

Hi, I wondered if you could change the title of the page "P2PTV" (wikipedia.org/wiki/P2PTV) to the new title "Peer-to-Peer Assisted Streaming Solution". I requested a change of title two weeks ago and you indicated on the "talk" page that you had done the relisting which is actually not done. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P2PTV). I stay at your disposal if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, vladimircabanisstreamroot talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vladimircabanisstreamroot: You opened an RM and I relisted it, you should wait until their is some participation in the RM. — Music1201 talk 16:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dublin Airport

Please be more careful when accepting edits on pending changes pages. The edit you accepted on the Dublin Airport page was clearly blatant vandalism. Thanks, VG31-irl 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@VG31-irl: How would you classify that as vandalism exactly? — Music1201 talk 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The same user with varying IP addresses vandalises lots of airport pages. I don't expect you to not that of course, but the user changed the statistics without any source or explanation. If you are unsure just let another user deal with the edit who does know. Thanks, VG31-irl 11:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@VG31-irl: Pending changes reviewers are responsible for declining edits in the following circumstances:

I suggest you re-read WP:Reviewing. — Music1201 talk 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"It contains vandalism or patent nonsense" - it was vandalism! Please be more careful in future. You are creating more work for others. If you are unsure just leave it. Thanks, VG31-irl 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@VG31-irl: diff: Yes it was factually incorrect, and probably would have been reverted, but it is not part of the criteria for declining edits. It was also the IP's only edit. — Music1201 talk 17:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Factually incorect" - No, it's vandalism! The user behind those IPs vandalises airport pages constantly. I revert them all the time. VG31-irl 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Help making Just a Tourist a valid wiki page

Hi, I am not trying to advertise Just a Tourist. I just wanted to create an informational page about the Band. What do I need to change to make it valid? I've never contributed to wikipedia so I don't really know what I'm doing.

Thank you! Justatourist (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Relistings

I notice you've relisted a couple of deletion debates I've been involved in, and I was wondering if you would rethink that. I both cases there seems to me to be a consensus already (though I've course I'm biased and involved). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Baptist Church, Eastleigh, you relisted it a second time, with the comment "Consensus to keep or merge?" where there was only one keep vote (which had basically said "it's notable") and that user had not participated further when pinged. The other one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Mor Gregorios, which also seem cut-and-dried to me. So I guess what I'm saying is: please only use relist as a last resort. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Both of those discussions could benefit from a relist. Remember, discussions, not votes. — Music1201 talk 22:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly - there were no arguments advanced for keeping the church. Why did you relist it? StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@StAnselm:  Closed after re-evaluating. — Music1201 talk 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for re-evaluating. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Could we get you to move this back to the "Official title" as per the legal source in article [1] " nd the stable version so a talk can take place.. this is definitely a controversial move. -- Moxy (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Music1201 talk 00:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Chandrajit Banerjee

Hi, I wonder why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandrajit Banerjee in absence of any policy-based argument. Two of the three "keep" !votes advance arguments which violate WP:NOTINHERITED while the third !vote offers Google Search (and a wrong one, on top of it) as "evidence" of notability. I believe decisions have to be based on policy, not on !vote count. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 21:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Were you expecting me to close as delete? AfD is a venue for discussion, if you thought the article clearly violated a policy or guideline, you should've used CSD or PROD. Everyone who participated in the discussion agreed the article should've been kept. — Music1201 talk 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you could have waited until at least one policy-based argument is put forward, if you didn't want to consider one in the nomination. By the way, I stopped using CSD a few months ago after being bullied by another editor who engages (until this day) with mass removal of CSD tags. — kashmiri TALK 21:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Music1201, I agree with Kashmiri in this particular case. The problem is not that it was closed as "keep" but that it could have benefited from more policy based votes. One possible option would have been to relist this to actually invite more discussion. Usually AfDs tend to be relisted if there are fewer than 4 votes (excluding the creator) and these votes usually don't explain the rational in detail. Another option here is to add WP:NPASR to the close so that it can be nominated again. You can do any one of these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Jhiljhile City AfD close

Hello. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhiljhile City. I just wanted to check that you realised that the editor who "withdrew" the nomination wasn't the nominator? Well, I say that, but they have since been blocked for sockpuppetry, so it could actually be the same person. Nonetheless, I think perhaps we should ignore the attempted withdrawal, given that the only keep/delete comment once socks' comments are disregarded is BU Rob13's delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that Theroadislong has now requested speedy deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season

Hello Music1201. Can I request that you reconsider your decision to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season? The only keep !votes should have been immediately discounted as they were SPAs who had made no edits to Wikipedia except in the discussion. This left only editors in favour of deletion, which I think should have been the outcome. Thanks, Number 57 07:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think relisting is OK here considering that only 2 delete votes were received. The SPA votes will generally be discounted anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There is already clear consensus that these articles should be deleted (see this AfD cited in the rationale), so I don't see the need to delay deletion. Number 57 07:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Music1201, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

AFD Closure

You closed the AFD on Avalance Global solutions as no consensus. The article clearly should be deleted. It was previously deleted under a different name, the related article was deleted, and there is sock puppetry involved. For some reason, few other editors commented. But rather than closing as no consensus, this needs to be relisted until there is enough comment to declare an actual consensus. Mb66w 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mb66w: The discussion was relisted 3 times with no discussion. Feel free to open another AfD. — Music1201 talk 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I concur. Mb66w, see WP:NPASR. clpo13(talk) 20:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Page Move

I requested at WP:RM that No woman be moved to No Woman. Why did you then move it to the unnecessarily-disambiguation No Woman (film), leaving the correct title still a red link? I've put it back at WP:RM. PamD 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Western Sand edited your request to change the target. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey PamD, I changed it because there is other media entitled No Woman and thus the page should not be take the primary page. I will make that page a disambiguation page now. Western Sand (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Western Sand: Well I'll be interested to see the disambiguation page, because I can't see anything else in the encyclopedia with the title "No Woman". There are some partial title matches, but nothing I can see to stop this film from being the primary topic. I'll wait to see the dab page. PamD 16:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I now see that your draft dab page includes a song so little-sought that no-one has made a redirect for it before, and a partial title match. I maintain that the film is the Primary Topic and should be moved to the title I requested. Please do not ever again alter an editor's request on the WP:RM page: this is completely out of order, as you left it looking as if I had requested that change. We now have the absurd situation that there is no link from No Woman at present to the film. As a very new editor, please go carefully before entering into complexities like the WP:RM page. Thank you. PamD 17:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no link at No Woman because it has been deleted three times already as this 3-minute film is simply not notable. It will be deleted again. Yet again, I am sorry for changing the move name and will plan to discuss it on a user's talk page beforehand in future instances so there is no need on telling me again. However, you are being foolish in saying No Woman by Whitney is a "so little-sought" song. It is clearly widely-more popular than this short film, whose page I plan to have deleted unless notability can be established. Western Sand (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Entry

Garrison New York page states that Roger Ailes is with Fox News. In fact, he no longer works for Fox News and resigned in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal, yet he is still associated with Fox News on the Garrison New York site. Changing outdated information is not vandalism, just reporting facts, as unconformable as they may be for Mr. Ailes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacheristudent (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Teacheristudent: If you are going to add information to biographies of living persons, please make sure to provide a reliable source. — Music1201 talk 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No consensus?

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witold Szczypiński, when you relisted you added a comment saying "final relist," do you believe that it should be closed as non consensus now? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Music1201/Archive_7&oldid=1143184031"