This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 19 June 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 9) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:04, 19 June 2015 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 9) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
TUSC token 0b59228b9d55f658b15a2fa9c42d1fdd
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hotel Okura Amsterdam
Hi, I am deeply unhappy with your decision in the AfD about Hotel Okura Amsterdam. I have never seen the discussion, otherwise I would have weight in. Is there any chance to change the outcome from "merge" to "delete"? After all, it would be rather strange to let the hotel article point to just one of the four well known restaurants (three with stars, one with Bib Gourmand). And reviewing the present article about the hotel, the most useful part is the address and this is/will be in the articles about the Michelin starred restaurants.
An other point is that mixing two subjects in one article (restaurant and hotel) is not the best idea. Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 10:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @The Banner: I think that the consensus was pretty clear for Merge, although I'm happy for you to exercise whatever discretion you like in deciding what to merge, and picking additional targets like Yamazato if you wish. Lankiveil 10:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hyde F.C. season
I'm surprised that you deleted 2012–13 Hyde F.C. season given that there was no refutation of my argument that the article met WP:GNG and the case against it was on other grounds. I'm even more surprised that you didn't address that in the closing statement. Can you please expand on your closing statement? Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: I feel that User:Number 57 fairly conclusively refuted your argument. I also took note of the fact that you were the only one dissenting in a fairly well attended discussion from the proposal to delete the article. Lankiveil 11:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
- How did User:Number 57 refute my argument at all, let alone conclusively? My argument is that based on the references in the article, and other provided, that the subject meets WP:GNG. User:Number 57 didn't even attempt to refute that, but simply repeated other claims - which aren't relevant, because WP:GNG trumps those claims. In addition, after I pointed to sources that supported the WP:GNG claim, no other editor even commented - other than User:Number 57. As such, I think the closing statement needs more detail. And the more I look at this, it looks like a bad close, that should be going to DRV. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Your record at AfD and of deprodding articles (look at your deleted user contributions) suggests that you do not understand GNG, or have a rather different interpretation of it to the majority of other editors. I suggest that rather than continue to waste editors time by forcing AfDs or DRVs when the outcome is fairly predictable, you accept the apparent consensus that certain topics are not deemed notable by other editors, and instead concentrate on topics that are notable. Although your behaviour in this sphere has been regarded as a problem for years, it really looks like you now appear to be little more than a WP:SPA dedicated to removing prods and arguing keep at AfDs – I can't see a single edit in your last 50 (since mid-May) that isn't in some way related to doing this. Number 57 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hang on. That's a completely unnecessary personal attack. Also the link you provided is broken (for me at least). Please provide a version I can review. I can't recall DRVing an article in a long time - I'm not sure what's that in reference too. The last couple I can think of were simple restoration requests that were done without much debate. Many of the articles I've deprodded that ended up in consensus that the articles should exist; some haven't. I'd suggest that User:Number 57 is completely out-of-line here with WP:AFG violations. It also completely fails to address the argument that this particular article does indeed meet WP:GNG. In addition #57 implies I'm a serial DRVer; I can only find 2 DRVs I've raised in the last 5 years. One was quickly overturned (article restored), and the other was withdrawn and the article restored as the player got a professional start. Going further back I raised a single DRV in 2009 that was overturned (article was returned to AFD and subsequently kept). I did raise some in 2008 ... is that relevant though? Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: I'm not sure how stating the facts constitute a personal attack; you are not a serial DRVer (I never said you were), but you are a serial deprodder (your contributions history clearly show you do little else these days; your last edit not related to an AfD or prod was on 4 May, since which you have made 85 edits, including removing prods from seven articles that were subsequently deleted at AfD) and have forced tens of pointless AfDs. I wasn't aware that non-admins wouldn't be able to see that link, but basically it shows all the articles you deprodded (often claiming GNG) that were subsequently deleted. Your behaviour has even previously been reported on ANI. Number 57 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't seven make sense. 7 articles deleted at AFD since May 4th but 10s of AFDs? That suggests that many were kept after going to AFD. And off-hand I can see about 10 in that time that didn't even go to AFD, because no one thought it was worth deleting after my deprod comments. Sure, I make mistake some times, but more of the articles I deprod are kept, then deleted. I've certainly had plenty of edits that aren't deletion-related ... though certainly less lately now that the soccer season has started ... I'm not sure why you are focussing only on the last few weeks ... I've got a decade of editing, with some very long breaks, and only a few edits in recent weeks. Though even since May 4th, I've done some article clean-up after it's clear an article won't be deleted; But none of this has any relevance to this discussion, for which you've done everything but refute the claim that the article in question meets . Perhaps we should for the moderator to comment, rather than you persisting in WP:AGF violations. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Read again and check where parts of sentences are in parentheses. This has been a problem since at least 2008, so any GF was lost many moons ago. Number 57 19:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is all very interesting, but I think I've answered the original question sufficiently, and anyone who thinks I have erred is welcome to go to DRV. In the meantime, it would be good if you could take this new discussion off of my talkpage. Thanks, Lankiveil 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
- @Nfitz: Read again and check where parts of sentences are in parentheses. This has been a problem since at least 2008, so any GF was lost many moons ago. Number 57 19:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't seven make sense. 7 articles deleted at AFD since May 4th but 10s of AFDs? That suggests that many were kept after going to AFD. And off-hand I can see about 10 in that time that didn't even go to AFD, because no one thought it was worth deleting after my deprod comments. Sure, I make mistake some times, but more of the articles I deprod are kept, then deleted. I've certainly had plenty of edits that aren't deletion-related ... though certainly less lately now that the soccer season has started ... I'm not sure why you are focussing only on the last few weeks ... I've got a decade of editing, with some very long breaks, and only a few edits in recent weeks. Though even since May 4th, I've done some article clean-up after it's clear an article won't be deleted; But none of this has any relevance to this discussion, for which you've done everything but refute the claim that the article in question meets . Perhaps we should for the moderator to comment, rather than you persisting in WP:AGF violations. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: I'm not sure how stating the facts constitute a personal attack; you are not a serial DRVer (I never said you were), but you are a serial deprodder (your contributions history clearly show you do little else these days; your last edit not related to an AfD or prod was on 4 May, since which you have made 85 edits, including removing prods from seven articles that were subsequently deleted at AfD) and have forced tens of pointless AfDs. I wasn't aware that non-admins wouldn't be able to see that link, but basically it shows all the articles you deprodded (often claiming GNG) that were subsequently deleted. Your behaviour has even previously been reported on ANI. Number 57 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hang on. That's a completely unnecessary personal attack. Also the link you provided is broken (for me at least). Please provide a version I can review. I can't recall DRVing an article in a long time - I'm not sure what's that in reference too. The last couple I can think of were simple restoration requests that were done without much debate. Many of the articles I've deprodded that ended up in consensus that the articles should exist; some haven't. I'd suggest that User:Number 57 is completely out-of-line here with WP:AFG violations. It also completely fails to address the argument that this particular article does indeed meet WP:GNG. In addition #57 implies I'm a serial DRVer; I can only find 2 DRVs I've raised in the last 5 years. One was quickly overturned (article restored), and the other was withdrawn and the article restored as the player got a professional start. Going further back I raised a single DRV in 2009 that was overturned (article was returned to AFD and subsequently kept). I did raise some in 2008 ... is that relevant though? Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Your record at AfD and of deprodding articles (look at your deleted user contributions) suggests that you do not understand GNG, or have a rather different interpretation of it to the majority of other editors. I suggest that rather than continue to waste editors time by forcing AfDs or DRVs when the outcome is fairly predictable, you accept the apparent consensus that certain topics are not deemed notable by other editors, and instead concentrate on topics that are notable. Although your behaviour in this sphere has been regarded as a problem for years, it really looks like you now appear to be little more than a WP:SPA dedicated to removing prods and arguing keep at AfDs – I can't see a single edit in your last 50 (since mid-May) that isn't in some way related to doing this. Number 57 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Back to original question. Can you point to where anyone refuted WP:GNG argument? Sorry to belabour this, but I'm perplexed by all the chaff, but no substance. Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Again, all I have to offer is that obviously every other participant in the discussion did not agree with your assertion that the topic met the GNG. These things are subjective, and it is possible to disagree on them. However, the consensus in this one was pretty clear I thought. Lankiveil 14:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC).
- I thought decisions were made on strength of argument, not number of votes. I'm not actually seeing anywhere in the debate where anyone challenges the WP:GNG claim I made after I provided references. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also note that Misplaced Pages guidlines such as Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Closure say that during closure "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached" - surely then there is an expection of some kind of closing statement in an AFD, where no one contested the Keep argument after it was made. I'm not asking you to revert; I'm simply asking you to complete the closure as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, if the article was a slamdunk GNG case, then I'd expect that more than a single participant would have pointed that out. I think your argument is a lot weaker than you think it is. There was no way that anyone was going to close a case with such a strong consensus for delete in any other way, sorry. As for explaining it, no admin gives a detailed rationale for every discussion, I have met the guidelines by responding to you here. Lankiveil 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC).
- I'd always assumed that guideline applied to the closing statement, rather than post-closing discussion - but you have fulfilled the guideline. I don't think it's a slamdunk GNG case either - but I think there is a case, and the debate is worth having, as I'm not aware of much debate on this (GNG) aspect of 5th tier clubs that operate on a national level (though I'd be happy if someone was to point me one - the ones that I've pointed too have made no claims of GNG). No, I don't think it would have been closed as a keep either, based on the debate - I'd have assumed it would have been relisted for further debate. Only one editor commented after I provided references supporting GNG - and they never mentioned the GNG aspect of this. In addition, no attempt was made at any time during the process to contact any of the stakeholders (anyone who has ever edited the article) - WP:DGFA notes that If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible; finally at about midnight BST on June 8th, I contacted a single stakeholder however you closed the discussion about 8 hours later at 8 AM BST without any participation (or probably any knowledge) of the stakeholder. I'd have thought that the discussion should be relisted for further debate. Though it's presumably too late to do this at this stage; so I assume we are looking at DRV (which isn't a place I really want to go - mostly from a time perspective) - though I wonder if perhaps debating subject in another forum might be appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, if the article was a slamdunk GNG case, then I'd expect that more than a single participant would have pointed that out. I think your argument is a lot weaker than you think it is. There was no way that anyone was going to close a case with such a strong consensus for delete in any other way, sorry. As for explaining it, no admin gives a detailed rationale for every discussion, I have met the guidelines by responding to you here. Lankiveil 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC).
- Also note that Misplaced Pages guidlines such as Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Closure say that during closure "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached" - surely then there is an expection of some kind of closing statement in an AFD, where no one contested the Keep argument after it was made. I'm not asking you to revert; I'm simply asking you to complete the closure as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I thought decisions were made on strength of argument, not number of votes. I'm not actually seeing anywhere in the debate where anyone challenges the WP:GNG claim I made after I provided references. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Again, all I have to offer is that obviously every other participant in the discussion did not agree with your assertion that the topic met the GNG. These things are subjective, and it is possible to disagree on them. However, the consensus in this one was pretty clear I thought. Lankiveil 14:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC).
The Misplaced Pages Library needs you!
The Misplaced Pages Library
The Misplaced Pages Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
- Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
- Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
- Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
- Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Delivered on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism by User:Samee
One Vandal namely User:Samee nominated article namely Rehmat Aziz for deletion. After consensus the decision was strong keep. Now the Vandal Samee removed all content from article Rehmat Aziz, deleted all references, all photos, all sources, all external links for his personal enmity with the renowned personality Rehmat Aziz. It is pertinent to mention here that he is the confirmed vandal in urdu wikipedia and the administrator of urdu wikipedia revoked his admin rights due to his vandalism in Urdu Misplaced Pages and his username has been banned. He is a confirmed sock puppet of User:Farhad Uddin, User:Deepak Chitrali and User:Najaf ali bhayo and they have moved article Rehmat Aziz Chitrali to Rehmat Aziz without any reason. The three users are the same person. User:Samee has been blocked for his vandalism by the administrator of Urdu wiki. Please blockUser:Samee and remove his adminship access and block him for abuse of admin access. I don't think he is qualified for admin or any access in Misplaced Pages. Please revert all his edits done by the vandalUser:Samee and restore all article to their original position--Abdulqayyumfsc (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)