User talk:WilyD/Archives/

Hi

That's all, really. // roux   12:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I was trying to show no hard feelings, and that was the response I got? roux   13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you were more polite in the future. I extended an olive branch of peace, to show that I harbour no ill will for what you have said about me. You responded with rudeness and ABF. That's not okay. roux   13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the choice to return, and I'm not aware of any current or potential blocking actions against me, so it's not as though I were 'allowed' to return. The appropriate response to a gesture of peace offered in nothing but good faith is to graciously accept it, period. roux   13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mário Neves

Crash! We ec'ed while declining the same speedy with virtually the same edit summary. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

WilyD/Archives, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: North America

Hi. You don't know me, but you may want to respond to this accusation at 'North America', from someone who doesn't know when to quit and believes you are editing anonymously (sockpuppeting). I suggest you read the remainder of that discussion, where I've responded and brought up a number of points. I won't relent (though I've had enough of this user), and this user hasn't convinced me through reputable sourcing or otherwise. 69.158.144.210 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino

Point taken--I deferred to your judgment since you've been more involved with this than I have. I guess seeing his genormous block log set something off in me. 13 distinct blocks in a year? We've indefblocked people for less than that. For that reason, I proposed that he be indefblocked and banned the next time he steps out of line ... I hope it wasn't too harsh, but this was because his overall record isn't anything to write home about. Blueboy96 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well--but still, after a year you'd think he'd get the hint--that's why I proposed that he be banned on the next offense. Blueboy96 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats

I'm sorry, but statements like "but don't come to his talk page to sling about accusations and hassle him in such a manner, that truly is uncivil.", while ignoring the reality of the situation, making up things that are clearly not true, and acting as if something went against the policy in which there was clearly no incivility, are highly inappropriate. This should probably be removed immediately, especially when most of your opposes are for this very reason. Your opposes right now, along with your actions, read like an RfA that would lead to a desysopping, not as a vote for a legitimate candidate. You can do the right thing and remedy this action immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I know they are there. And there have been dozens upon dozens of people questioning your ability to apply Wikipedia policies appropriately, thus, you are most likely not applying them correctly now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah no.

That option should have been on the table from the moment he was told to stop attacking me and kept doing it.

But no.. he gets away with it. He gets away with spreading lies. Had I done any of that you would have blocked me without a moment's thought. I am so sick of all this. // roux   editor review 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards your message on my talk- people had been claiming in the thread a block would just be punitive, I was just saying this was not the case if it stopped him at least temporarily, and/or then deterred. But if he really will stop now without a block, I see what you mean.:) I think it was you that said in the thread that people know what OR is capable of and it might well cause problems for him in the future. I imagine that could be a reassuring sign for Roux that OR's behaviour isn't being ignored. Anyway, maybe now there'll be permanent reform, we live in hope.:) Sticky Parkin 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo on Michael Voss article

G'day. Photographer is my partner, and has given permission for it to be used. I probably selected the wrong legal information when I uploaded it, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBrownDog (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, she has taken pictures of the entire Brisbane Lions squad (40 + players) so we can put them on Wikipedia. Does she have to grant permission on each photo individually? Is it easier if she just registers on Wikipedia and uploads them as her own images, or does she still have to grant permission?

AfD nomination of Human legitimacy principle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Human legitimacy principle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human legitimacy principle. Thank you. andy (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

IIRC, you'll need to tell Gurch (talk · contribs) you've withdrawn rather than editing the bot page where it will be overwritten by GurchBot. Sorry you felt you didn't want to continue in the running - please don't let withdrawal from this spread to withdrawal from WP: we need you! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Astaroth-sc3-concepts.jpg

As the uploader I was actually trying to find a quick means to suggest deleting it as it wasn't needed (I went with a different image instead). Is there a particular speedy template for that? I tend to upload images often for articles as necessary so it would be handy for future reference.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In praise of your wonderful contributions

Hello! I was doing DYK verifications and I came across your articles on the Norfolk Island Pigeon and Lord Howe Island Pigeon. I wanted to commend you for your excellent research and writing, so I hope you can accept this token of my appreciation:

		The Writer's Barnstar
		In tribute to your successful efforts in expanding the content and character of Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Norfolk Island Pigeon

On 14 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norfolk Island Pigeon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK template

WilyD, I noticed you were having some difficulties with the new DYK template; I'm sorry to hear that. The template is still very much an ongoing experiment, and I'm working with some other editors to try to make it simpler and make its usage clearer; there is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:DYKsuggestion about ways to improve the template. If you have any thoughts about what specifically you found difficult, or what might be helpful or make the template easier, you are welcome to leave a comment there or at my talk page. The problem right now is, as you probably noticed, the template does some nice things when you're used to using it and know how everything works, but if you're not used to using it then it can be pretty confusing, so I'm hoping we can find ways to make everything more transparent and user-friendly. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Hubble Deep Field for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew that you'd worked with Serendipodous before... and plus your name was at WP Astronomy so I thought I might as well contact you. —Ceran [ speak ] 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lord Howe Island Pigeon

On 17 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lord Howe Island Pigeon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating article, thank you- exactly what I want when I click on a DYK link. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Puerto Rican Conure

On 18 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puerto Rican Conure, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Say it ain't so!

For your information the article Jeff Buckley is not a "biography of a living person", and it never has been! While I'm here: I like your choice of articles that you've made/got to GA. The Lord Howe Pigeon DYK was especially interesting! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vettaikaran

Thanks for your note. I guess I'll put it up for AfD again. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd deletion at PUI

Hi, I noticed that you deleted File:Tom Birdseye Signature.gif from WP:PUI as a blatant copyright infringement. Signatures, however, are not generally subject to copyright. I noted this in the discussion and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Why did you delete it? Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Leparulo

Are you sure that he is notable enough? What about Peter van Stolk, who has no article but has a Forbes profile and was the former CEO and founder of a notable corporation? mynameinc —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mid Herts Divers

Hi, with respect I think you missed the point in declining the speedy deletion of this article You said "claims to be the world's largest diving club", however, that statement applies to the national British Sub Aqua Club and not to the individual club in Mid Herts. Regards, WWGB (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanity press

I think you are mistaken. Jimmy G. Tharpe's book is by 21st Century Press. According to its website: "If you have a manuscript and want it published, feel free to call... " Their slogan is "We are a subsidy press that wants to partner with you." They explain: "Though we are a subsidy press, I prefer to call it a partnership. As a subsidy press, the author pays all up front costs for publishing the book." It's a vanity press, the author pays to have it editted and printed. Tgreach (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mid Herts Divers

I'm not sure why my Wiki page was deleted.

All the content on the page is written by me. It was taken from our club website www.MidHertsDivers.com - which is also written by me. If another site displays that content, they don't own the copyright of it.

Also, the statement "largest diving club in the world" applies to BSAC and not our club. Perhaps the deleter should have read the article properly.

These are not good enough reasons to delete my Wiki page.

How do I go about getting it reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidHertsDivers (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoebe Wall Howard & Howard Consulting

Hello, the other day you deleted some content I added to wikipedia, since I have read a bit more on how to handle copyrighted material. Since Phoebe Wall Howard has written the appropriate emails to both wiki permissions email address allowing GFDL from her site http://www.phoebehoward.com to be hosted on Wikipedia. Can the pages and image now be reinstated? Thank you, Pmachac (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

Care to explain this to me? I assume you've made an honest mistake, but i'd like to know if theres something wrong. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just shows you're human. thanks for the explanation! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

I appreciate it. Happy editing.. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your keep in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7_Day_Week. Could you enlighten me what 'OR' means --Pnb73 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ames Jones

Thanks for dropping the speedy. At this point Commissioner Jones is primarily notable as a state legislator, but if someone wants to start the AFD process I won't argue it. I just wanted to clean up and reference the article so it didn't look like a lame cut and paste job. (Sometimes I think I should find a better hobby than categorizing uncat pages, but it makes much less clutter in my home than other hobbies of mine.) Thanks for your work with the OTRS system! --Oddharmonic (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK noms and your sig

I've seen you do it twice now, so I figured I'd tell you. The DYK template isn't calculated for wikilinked signatures. Just give your name and the template will link your userpage and talk page. The way you do it now makes the links look funny. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium

Hi there, I was puzzled by your comment in this AfD, since I can't find any sources that discuss these elements. Could you put some links to these sources on the AfD page so I can read them? Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for deleted contribs

Hi there, I noticed you are in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and I remembered your name from the G2/Prince of Canada dispute. I wonder, does "deleted articles" stretch to deleted contribs? If so, could you please eMail me mine? I'd be awfully grateful, I've been wanting to take a peek at mine for ages. ;) Thanks --Cameron* 21:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with just the list, if that's OK. Sorry for being a bit vague... ;) --Cameron* 11:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ;) --Cameron* 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Yuill

On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Yuill, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WilyD. please never, ever, in your life, post maps you made up and attempt to pass them as fact. PLEASE!

~RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragingfred (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad speedy's

Hi Wily, The first two "bad speedy's" you linked to were the same edit, and neither one of them was the user in question. Could you double check your links?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Oh god, you're right... I did reference IP edits... Switching to neutral... ErikTheBikeMan (talk)03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The NewsMarket

Thanks for the input, you accidently reverted to an older version. (talk)03:43, 29 January 2009 EST

Re speedy deletion of One Life To Live(album)

Re your comment, "band has article", the band is currently not doing very well at AfD (not a single keep vote yet). So what do I do - do I add this to the AfD or create a new one? If the former how do I add it? -- role^player 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for David Yuile

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Yuile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wily

I was wondering, do you think you might be able to edit this picture slightly

to include Jupiter in orbit, so that the relationship between the Trojans and Jupiter could be readily understood? Hope that's not too much trouble. Serendi^podous 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. No pressure. You've done a lot already. :-) Serendi^podous 11:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Notes and References

I'm not completely sure about this, but I think that only notes that refer to actual sources (books, journals, etc.) need to have corresponding entries in the References section. If the task seems too daunting, maybe it would be best left as a possible to-do after FAC? I would hate to disrupt the stability of the article with a big undertaking. I wouldn't withhold support over it, it's just a preference. --Laser brain (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Check The Swimming Hole, it is a good example. As you see, they've made Reference entries when the note refers to a book or journal. If the note refers to a URL with a hyperlink, it is not even an entry in the References list. The footnote displays the entire reference (as you have it today). In the case where a book title is known but no author, the convention is to omit the author and the entry just begins with the book title in italics (see this link under the Unknown Author heading for example). --Laser brain (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's looking good now. There are so many ways to do it, it all comes down to what the author is comfortable with. Take a look at what I'm doing at musical instrument. If you click footnote #1, you get taken to the note. However, clicking the note then takes you down to the reference. This can be done by using the harvnb template between ref tags but I have little idea what it's actually doing behind the scenes. I got the idea from reading some FAs like saffron. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think so. Not to mention it would be maddening to convert all the references. I like the linking harvnb provides because someone can jump right to the entry in the References list without scrolling. It's a design choice. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I switched to support. Since the MoS mentions nothing about the heading preference, I've dropped the issue. It must be a leftover from my professional work where we wouldn't be allowed to go from an H2 to an H3 without intro text :) --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hi WilyD, Many thanks for your support in my RFA. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. PS like your user page, nice use of Lolcat. WereSpielChequers 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I wanted to thank you for your constructive comments at my (failed) RfA. I'm glad you were able to dig up past mistakes so that users could !vote on the most information possible; my goal was to keep it as open and transparent as it could be. I have begun admin coaching with another user and hope to fill in the gaps you and some others respectfully pointed out. Hopefully I can earn your trust some time in the future! And there is a general thank you on my talk page if you're interested. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Camosexual

Hi

Speedy guidelines say: "Neologisms. If not obviously ridiculous, new specialized terms should have a wider hearing." - so there's clearly some room for interpretation of what's "obviously ridiculous".

If a neologism is obviously ridiculous, how should it be nominated for deletion? Is there a valid speedy category or should they always be via "prod"? pablo_hablo. 14:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the ridiculousness I was trying to fit to a CSD category rather than the neologism. pablo_hablo. 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Latinos in Atlanta

Hi, I had tagged Latinos in Atlanta for no content as there has been no actual article content added since the article was created a week ago. Also there are 5 registered users who's only contributions have been (similar) edits to this article. I know that isn't deletion criteria but it is rather curious. Is there something that is more appropriate, it doesn't look like it is actually under construction.--kelapstick (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While expansion would be an improvement (the ideal outcome of an AfD), I am going to think about this for a bit, thanks for the input.--kelapstick (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 5

Hi there,

I have now replied to your comment on my bot's BRFA.

Regards,

The Helpful One 16:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Judgeking

I just rolled back an edit of his – the same one to Muhammad that you had previously reverted multiple times. He just messaged me in this thread asserting that his edit was in good faith; what should be done? →Dyl@n620 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Wily, thanks for the sockpuppet investigation, that was interesting! I hope the conclusion didn't disappoint you, but I don't really care about enough Wikipedia to go through the trouble of setting up different accounts (it's really just a glorified message board, isn't it?). Cheers! --Judgeking (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Anyway, how could someone edit from IPs 70 miles apart (if that CheckUser thing is accurate) in just minutes? If I had that kind of power, I wouldn't be wasting my time here! --Judgeking (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

→Dyl@n620 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Shut your mane

You stated that Shut your mane was not nonsense. What do you make of the emoticon? A wikipedia entry isn't a chatroom or instant messenger, let alone a message board, so how would such a statement be "encyclopedic" at all? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how throwing in emoticons isn't even faulty grammar, I don't really think you have grounds to say that their use is not part of nonsense. As someone who has a great deal of experience editing content here, I can definitely say that claims that the above were 100% not nonsense need to seriously be reconsidered, because if -that- is senseful, then, well, I think it is clear... We obviously differ in opinion, but to say that someone who sees this as nonsense has no ground, well, I think it is obvious that not everyone holds the same view as you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A useful definition of nonsense is in User:I'm Spartacus!/CSD G1 survey. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smilie faces can be "understood" but are patent nonsense. I really don't know how you can argue otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an WP:CSD#A1 to me. A very short article lacking sufficient context to make even a reasonable stub. Any objection to me speedy deleting it on those grounds? Chillum 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, at this point, it is an on going justification for opposes during an RfA, and a deletion might remove the legitimacy of these concerns, which would be inappropriate unless the parties referring to it all agree. (since not everyone at RfA is an admin and can look at what the page was about) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the state of the encyclopedia than the state of an RfA. WilyD is the admin who removed the first CSD tag, so I am asking before proceeding. I would csd this type of article as lacking context without a moment's consideration normally. It is clearly not something that is useful to the encyclopedia. Chillum 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Entirely consists of? No, it needs to have some -redeemable- piece of information. For it not to be G1, you need to prove that there is something worth saving, not the opposite. The page was not even to a state that it could be considered to have bad grammar. It is a series of random words with random myspace type symbols thrown together. You might as well shoot darts into a dictionary and type what you hit. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"which clearly communicates that it's a term " I don't think the word "clearly" can be applied to anything on the "Shut your mane" page. It is barely English. There isn't a grammar problem. There is a translation problem. There is a coherency problem in the fact that there are words without even the basis of thought thrown together with emoticons used to try and fill in gaps. Remember, gibberish is the second clause - "Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning" (from the wikipage). The final clause of G1 is "with no meaningful content or history". Gibberish without any meaningful content or history. The emoticon is the definite give away. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are telling me what you think the article is about. I'm telling you that I just don't see it. I have a lot of experience with content here. If I can't see it, chances are other people cannot see it. It looks like gibberish to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it. It was not nonsense. You could tell what the article was about. It just was just not an encyclopedic subject. Chillum 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still can't tell what the article is about. Regardless, I am glad that at Wikiversity, we combine "nonsense, spam, or vandalism" as one catchall justification, instead of having dangling pieces. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is deleted, in what way is this matter not settled? Chillum 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is meaningless. WilyD was the one to first put out the idea that G1 was completely inappropriate, and this was used to justify opposes at an RfA. I looked in to see if it was true and I saw something that -I- would see as being nonsense. I figured that if I could show that you don't have to be utterly insane to see this as nonsense that possibly the harsh attitude towards the original CSD tagger would be lessened. However, I think its clear that people think I am insane for seeing the same thing. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if by you saying its not nonsense making it not nonsense, well, that is rather amusing. To be honest, I think that all CSD deletions should be approved by two admin before a page is deleted. I don't like the unilateral action for such reasons as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Patent nonsense means pages like "qarugh;arjgh;qwo48t" or (Balloonman's example) "Homer simpsons being hulk to destroy the radioactive man is homer but this the clone homer daffy duck being green lantern to destroy sinestro is tazmania but this the original tazmania spongebob bob being mermaid man to destroy aquaman is patrick but this the original patrick"—articles that are nothing but random characters, or strings of words that are completely unparseable. The Shut Your Mane page, when it was there, at least had a sentence that I could understand; the article had no context and no useable material, as pointed out by Chillum, but wasn't necessarily patent nonsense, which is meant to be a very narrow criterion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, blogtv provides enough context for one to research the term more. You could expand the article if sources existed, they don't. Ironically enough, I may have finally convinced myself it would be a valid A7 (web content, no assertion of significance). But I'm sure it isn't remotely A1 or G1. WilyD 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing CSD tag with the summary "Uhm ?"

Hi Wily.

I do not seem to understand why you just removed a CSD tag from the article "Bugger". I tagged it per WP:CSD#A5.

-calvinps- (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Calvinps's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok, i will bear this in mind in future, thanks! Macromonkey (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly explained

SoWhy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This is for

“ In essence, if you blanked out the promotional/spammy bits, you should be starring at a blank page. ”

which I read on User talk:Macromonkey. So simple and yet so correct. I salute your skills in explaining it in such simple terms! SoWhy 12:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

David Youmans

I added a little info and some refs to your user page on David Youmans. I happened to look at your contributions and noticed it, and, being a Youmans, couldn't resist adding a little. The sources seem to disagree on where he is born, but the Loyalist source seems to be pretty positive. Perhaps the others are just assuming that he was born in Canada? Sadly, though, I'm not sure this is ever going to work itself up to enough notability for a real article. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wily

Sorry to bother you again but the image guy over at the Jupiter Trojan FAC is asking for the sources used to generate Hektor's orbit. Hope it's not too much trouble but could you link to it? Thanks. Serendi^podous 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Potash One

A tag has been placed on Potash One, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bongomatic 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas Burch (circuit rider)

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Burch (circuit rider) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AN

Hi, I just asked a question there that you should be aware of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remember_WP:BLOCKME.3F Please join in if you feel appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordination involving The 404

Is it possible for us to coordinate in creating a lasting 404 page? I have a source code prepared with many more outside sources than the original or even the newer 404 deleted pages. If you are interested please contact me back. Thank you for your work on wikipedia. Frebel93 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[[1]]

Muhammad

Yeah, I used to buy into all that but as far as I'm concerned assuming bad faith of new users is a bad thing, assuming bad faith of those making stupid comments/can't be bothered to do a bit of leg work is totally acceptable. RaseaC (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate and understand that and have no problems with users that wish to stick to those customs, just as I have no problem with you. However, I assume that everyone has a certain level of intelligence and don't have time for those don't use it.RaseaC (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You may

Well, I don't see any entire sections that could be archived (maybe MBisanz != MZMcBride, though it's not doing much harm). I could selectively archive stuff from the "Based upon one deletion?" section, but that would probably cause more drama than it prevents. Most of what's there right now is people voicing support for MBisanz's continuation as an admin and, there being no place to do that on the recall page proper, it seems appropriate to allow it on the discussion page. I'll keep an eye on it, though, and do feel free to chime in with any other suggestions (or reiterations of that one, if there's something specific you think should go). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of why I suggested that discussion be centralized there is so it wouldn't bother people with the good sense to stay away by clogging up ANI, AN, etc. (though one could argue that anybody with good sense would be staying away from those venues as well). As long as the tempest remains in the teapot, I'd rather not archive. I will if things go to far, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WilyD/Amalgamation of Toronto

I came across User:WilyD/Amalgamation of Toronto from a Google search, recently Amalgamation of Toronto was created. Can some of your page be used in it? Cheers Epson291 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it looks good what you've done. Epson291 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland–Zambia relations

Hi. I see you removed my {{PROD}} nomination for Ireland–Zambia relations with the edit summary "transparently notable topic". Before I take it to AfD, could explain a little more about what you mean by "transparently topic"? I'm not sure what you mean, and I wanna make sure I'm not missing something before I spend the time writing up the AfD. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

spelling

I was scanning Jimbo's talk page and I saw your comments. I noticed a word you kept messing up on. morale is not spelled moral. If you have low morale, you are not happy, high morale and you are happy. A moral is what the story is trying to teach you. At the end of fable in Aesop's Fables, there is a moral. Feel free to delete these comments at any time. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Carl Stephenson (producer)

Hi
Concerning your protection of Carl Stephenson (producer), I wouldn't consider one vandalistic edit in four months an excessive BLP violation, and the previous dispute seems resolved since the two editors left. Would you consider setting at least an expiration for the semi protection?
Cheers, Amalthea 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the base rate of editing, though, it's very high. In a case like that, one can't really expect many (if any) eyes to be on it, so it's very troubling that way. It was actually reverted pretty fast though, and apparently you were watching too, so I'll chew it over a bit. WilyD 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I never looked at it this way. I do have it watchlisted, in any case, ever since the prior BLP problems. Cheers, Amalthea 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Toronto Women's Bookstore

On March 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toronto Women's Bookstore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve Crane

I recreated the page. Would you mind re-opening the AFD and let it run its natural course. Thanks.Inmysolitude (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and re-opened the AFD.Inmysolitude (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Its not copywrited. Your assessment is a violation of WP:OWN. Once you add something its not yours. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Inmysolitude (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• No the GNU free document license belongs to wikipedia and not any individual editor. Thats the price you pay for adding content here. Once it here it is no longer "yours". Further, it was a bad decision on your part to not decline the speedy. Consensus at the AFD was going the other way to keep the article. Inmysolitude (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also query your original speedy deletion and was about to take this whole sorry mess to WP:AN as I had licensing concerns before you speedied it again under G12. Although the original speedy was strictly within G7 I don't feel it is within the spirit of G7 especially with so many keep votes and I feel WP:COMMONSENSE should have applied - once you've submitted it to Wikipedia it's no longer yours to control so if the consensus is to keep then it is my opinion it should be kept. I'm not really sure how to take this forward as although I feel it needs wider discussion I'm not sure WP:DRV is the way to go as your deletion was perfectly reasonable. AfD was clearly getting a consensus of keep here so I'm not sure it's an AfD issue anyway as the consensus is that there should be a page the question is whether it should be the one you originally speedied. I'm interested in your thoughts. At the moment I'm mindful to take this to WP:DRV just to give it a wider airing - if you can point me somewhere more appropiate to discuss it it wold be appreciated. I will probably also post at Wikipedia Talk:CSD to see if the criteria needs revising. Dpmuk (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with most of what you have to say and that's why I'm being very weary about how to take this forward. Personaly I'm largely on your side and don't have a problem with the deletion but, given the problems it has caused, I'd like to see a consensus that the sort of action you took is supported by the community (as I'm not sure that there currently is). However I'd agree that taking it to DRV is probably not the way to go, not least due to the drama caused. If you're happy with the idea I'll post the general problem at Wikipedia Talk:CSD with this specific case as an example and see if we can get a consensus. If the consensus is that such pages shouldn't be deleted we can always revisit the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Started a discussion here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 concerns. Dpmuk (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for helping me out here and I'm sorry if this has caused you any grief. It won't be happening via me again as I'm going to vanish (once I figure out how to (any hints welcome, I want to do more than just retire this time!) and not before I've written on the G7 concerns page). This whole experience has put me off editing for good. My one remaining request would be that if the article is created, not something I would myself agree with, then it's nothing to do with me, and as you say, no longer on my conscience and no longer can I be held accountable for it. So, no resurrection of the deleted article with my name attached to it please!. Thanks again, and kudos for your ethical view, which I whole-heartedly agree with. WikiGull (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Mansour Al Cognosji XVI

Well done with identifying part of the text to Louis XIV, just wondering whether the redirect is legitimate though. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Though as for rewriting Louis XIV's biography, if you're bored later on I recommend reading the bottom of the pre-redirect version, it's quite... creative :). MLauba (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)

You removed the speedy deletion template from this page, saying "plausibly edited by others?" Be assured that it has not been edited by others. Huskysker, 74.9.216.50 (now blocked as an open proxy), and MaryEastVill are all the same user. The other edits to the article, by Addbot, Wetman, and me, were all minor maintenance edits.

Your edit summary also said: "Either way, no reason to cut off our nose, our face wouldn't even be spited." I beg to differ. Among the long-term disruptive behaviors for which this user earned his/her community ban is falsification of sources. This has included adding content that was copied verbatim from copyrighted sources but was inserted in articles with citations to completely unrelated sources (typically an obscure book title with a date from the early 20th century that is not available online), citations to plausible sounding sources that upon examination do not even vaguely support the content, and reference callouts that identify an online source as something completely different than what it actually is (for example, a PDF of a school system brochure was identified as being the Wall Street Journal -- and the brochure did not have information relevant the factoid that the reference callout was attached to). Many of this user's contributions appear to be highly plausible, but after having investigated far too many of this user's edits, I think it would be foolhardy for Wikipedia to accept at face value ANYTHING that this user contributes. Unless you are prepared to personally verify and stand behind the contents of the subject article, please delete it.

Note that this is not the first time this article has been created by this particular sockpuppet collective. I am aware of Neptune Island (New Rochelle) and Neptune Island (New York), but there may be others. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How carefully did you check the sources that you checked? This 1848 history book is cited to support the sentence "When Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island (now included in Glen Island) in 1847 and built his residence there, he established a chain-ferry between that island and Neptune Island for his own private use, landing at a dock on the west of Neptune Island." The book does exist, and it does state that Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island, but it says nothing about his building a residence or a chain ferry, and it does not indicate that Locust is part of Glen Island (another source cited earlier in the article does document the name change). The following paragraph has extensive historical information, but the only source cited documents only that New Rochelle and Pelham Railroad Company and the New Rochelle Street Railway Company were established in 1885 and that a branch line to the Neptune House dock was planned; none of the other details in the paragraph are documented by that source. Based on my past experience with the banned user, I think it likely that the entire article is copied from some source that is not identified or cited in the article. (Massive sockpuppetry is not the only reason that the user was banned.) --Orlady (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:Ban#Enforcement by reverting edits (for example, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert") no longer a Wikipedia policy? --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That policy is relevant because the basis for speedy deletion of that article was enforcement of the ban (using {{db-banned}}), not specific issues with that article. If the article were about an important topic (not an area that is now just a smallish city park) and/or easily converted into something fully verified, I would not have requested speedy deletion, but I see nothing about this specific article that makes it seem worthwhile to keep it. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You ask why I'm in a hurry to delete the article. Basically, I figure that after each group of socks has been confirmed, it's time to review all the articles they created and request speedy deletions. (In this instance, the SPI investigation took 2-1/2 weeks after I reported the sock that created this particular article, during which time I waited.) More importantly, one of the ways in which this user disrupts Wikipedia is by inducing honest contributors to expend large amounts of time engaged in wikiprocess related to his/her activities. I would rather spend my time creating valid content than engaging in an AfD process for every dubiously sourced articles about an individual city park, residential subdivision, zip code, building, or similar topic that was created by a banned user in violation of a community ban. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As i just stated at the location of Orlady's recent checkuser request on Jvolkblum, I am preparing a community unban proposal for the current user, to separate this one out of the mess that I believe has ensnared several persons. I believe Orlady and others have treated this user and others very badly. WilyD, I will be sure to invite you to comment in the Unban discussion (and I will notify Orlady when I post it). doncram (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neptune Island (Long Island Sound), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Island (Long Island Sound). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of misnamed article

I figured it was apparent why the List of state ornithological sites article needed deleting as I misnamed and created new correctly named article which it points to. I have re-added a request with an explanation. I don't care either way, it just makes no sense to not delete. speednat (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

good job

Thanks for the fair adminship of a recent speedy deletion request. Closetindex (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)closetindex

Transwiki request

Hello! Could you please transwiki List of films by gory death scene to wikia:annex:List of films by gory death scene and wikia:list:List of films by gory death scene? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

So, how are is that complete rewrite coming? :) --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moldova–South Korea relations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Moldova–South Korea relations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–South Korea relations. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Hutter

Regarding your comments that Freddy Hutter obviously asserts notability, the article says that he:

• publishes timely graphs related to Peak Oil Depetion, Economics & Election Forecasts
• publishes coversions of popular opinion polls to Seat or Riding Projections for several jurisdictions

In other words, he explains what he does for a living. Are these remarkable things that he does, that by mentioning him he makes himself out to be notable?

He says that his website is popular. That isn't inherently a claim of his own notability, and since it's an autobiography, and therefore a vanity piece, I wasn't inclined to make the necessary inferences of his own notability on his behalf.

In other words, I feel pretty confident that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (WP:CSD A7). Also, note that this is different from simply asserting significance. The provision was intentionally reworded following discussion a couple of months ago.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

AN/I thread about you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_disruption_by_User:WilyD henrik•talk 08:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacques Natteau

I would like to request the page I deleted yesterday by mistake. My intention was to make a Sandbox page instead I made a regular one. I am still working on the content of this person so I can present a more complete article about him. I am new in here and it's being a little difficult for me to format it the way I would like. I have to read tutorials and open other pages so I can copy some layouts.

Thanks in advance.

Kinouria (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Contesting Prod

I've restored it. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PROD removal

Please do not remove PROD tags with the edit summary "rm bad tag" as it is uncivil. You are of course entitled to remove PROD tags that you disagree with, but you do not have the right to leave insulting edit summaries while doing so. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Poland–Uruguay relations

I apologize for not responding to your first post; its heading was messed up and it got entangled with the Signpost so I overlooked it. If you want to work on the article, I will be happy to userfy it for you to expand using these sourcs and move to the article namespace, as I noted in my closure. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I userfied the article for you (here). If you're fine with that, could you please withdraw your DRV? Anyway, I'm seeing lots of "X–Y relations" on AfD lately and I've seen discussions escalate quite a lot. This delay in decision making is a mistake on my part and not on yours, so I was probably more rude than you with my not replying to your post. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland–Zambia relations

I just saw your job at that article. Very well done, man. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please look this one over

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Uruguay relations, I have expanded the article and included new references but it seems there is a mass hist aria to say delete. I have seen your introduction of sources on other articles such as this one and am wondering if you can look it over. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Chile relations

I added a fact and a source about a double citizenship law, but I don't know the specific details and I could only make a vague statement. Can you check it out and fix it? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I hadn't thought of searching in Spanish. I found a couple of sources and reworded it. Problem is, that law happens to be an Armenian law covering all nationalities and it's not specific to Chile, so I'm not sure that it's relevant in that article :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you change your screen name?

• I'm assuming that "The Wily Fox" is your new nom de plume. Whatever monicker you go by, good work on defending the articles on nations that really do have a relationship. So many of these got mass produced, over a period of a few months, that it's easy for people to assume that they're all worthless. While I have zero respect for Groubani/Plumoyr, I applaud you for giving people pause to think. Mandsford (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Names for Americans

Hey Wily, you've weighed in here before, so I figured I'd let you know about the current discussion at Names for Americans, if you haven't seen it already. We're trying to strike a compromise on the name, and I'd appreciate the input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Kuiper belt picture

Thought you might like to know that your Kuiper belt picture is popping up on university professors' lectures. Just type "kuiper belt" into youtube. Well done! Serendi^podous 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kosovo – Panama relations

Hi! Kosovo – Panama relations has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo – Panama relations. Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Abusive AfDs

See: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Abusive_AfDs where the dismisal of your 36 references are mentioned. Ikip (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Amalgamation of Toronto

I finally got around to doing it, your work looks good. - Epson291 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation (America/s)

Hey WilyD! User:Geoff Plourde has agreed to take up the case that I filed a while ago. Mediation taking place here. Your input would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! Night w (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of Ikip

Please unblock Ikip. We do not use blocks to enforce wikibreaks. ÷seresin 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLOCKME is not part of the policy anymore, thus such blocks are allowed. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that administrators such as WilyD did it anyway, and so he removed it from the policy, and so you are correct in that the policy page no longer proscribes it. So I suppose the request, on a policy basis, is withdrawn. ÷seresin 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, anyways. But - uh - glad to have not been of service, but have everything sorted out before I even logged back on. WilyD 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nominations

Hi! Comorian–Kosovan relations, Kosovan–Peruvian relations, Kosovan–Maltese relations and Kosovan–Luxembourgian relations have been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comorian–Kosovan relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Peruvian relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Maltese relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Luxembourgian relations. Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to deviate here

I miss your AfD votes. I hope all is well with you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

People Keep Deleting My Article

WilyD, This is cerberusrunning (newbie). I put up an article for Kim Eveleth, but someone totally deleted it (I think, since I can't find it.) Will you please explain if you can undelete it, and how to make an article that won't get deleted? I'm working on articles on producers/directors, and put up a template on Kim Eveleth, producer (you can see it on my cerberusrunning/entertainment industry template page.

Thanks. cerberusrunning 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Need your input on an MfD

I could really use your input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

notability

Hello, could you take a look at this page Mother_Sayamagyi.It has been re-tagged after you removed the tag. Thank you. Mysticeditor (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vintage Real Estate G4

I've left you a response at Talk:Vintage Real Estate. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A belated welcome back

Welcome back, belatedly. Steve Smith (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. No idea if it'll stick, but having to deal with all the bilateral relations stuff really wore me down. WilyD 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Javed Kodu

Hi Wiley, I've replied to your post on Talk:Javed Kodu. Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 09:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of comments by User:Cbevers

Thought I'd explain myself. I'm deleting the comments by Cbevers on several talk pages per SOAP. They are unconstructive rants by someone who is hugely uninformed about how copyright works. I feel those rants do nothing except serve as a discouragement for working on the articles. The user hasn't been active in over 4 years, and will doubtfully contribute to wikipedia... In fact, before I saw those messages I tried emailing him months back asking for a small piece of information, and didn't even get dignified with a response. the other solution it to archive the discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's bad form, and normally I would revert someone doing it. I'll archive the discussions, because he posted essentially the same rant at 5 or 6 talk pages. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

El Cajón Dam

Hello. I dont you think you understood the situation. El Cajon Dam needs to be moved to El Cajón Dam, (with redirect). Not El Cajón Dam (Argentina) to El Cajón Dam. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rationale unclear

Your rationale here doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clarify? To wit, the content is being stored in article space incorrectly and is a duplicate of another article. Why shouldn't it be deleted? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jessie McKay

That's the third time it's been recreated. Should be blocked now IMO. !! Justa Punk !! 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rhino logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Rhino logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rhino logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Rhino logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Council of Jewish Communities

On 2 March you deleted the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities page for "unambiguous copyright infringement". However, use of the material, based on a page from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities website, was fully authorised by the Council, and was not, therefore, an infringement. I intend to recreate the page, again with full permission to use any material from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) website, and request that this time it should not be deleted on non-existent grounds. Leah Granat —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCoJeC (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nemesis Star Theory Question

Hi,

In March you mentioned the following in the discussion area of the Nemesis Star article--

"Hipparcos doesn't have a parallax for it, so it's dimmer than v = 11.5"

I am a non-scientist, but found your point interesting. Can you tell me what magnitude "v = 11.5" is?

• • I am not making any edit suggestions, but am just intrigued by your point.

Can you tell me what that magnitude is relative to say, a dim red dwarf, brown dwarf or several jupiter mass planet?

Appreciatively,

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

• Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

You had previously participated in a deletion discussion for this subject, at its first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician). It has been nominated for deletion, again. The discussion is taking place, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pan-american

Regarding the recent addition to the Americas, is it right to have that in the infobox without it even being mentioned in the article? Not questioning its accuracy, just its validity in the infobox with the present state of the article. A short sentence with source is probably all that is needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it fails for accuracy as well. The word does not appear to exist, or at least is not common enough to include in the OED, or in my smaller Random House or Webster's. It only appears to exist as an adjective. — kwami (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Annie Louisa Walker

Hello! Your submission of Annie Louisa Walker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shadygrove2007 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, thankee. WilyD 18:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Annie Louisa Walker

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bands Against Bush nominated for deletion again

As you commented in the earlier discussion, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush (2nd nomination), which I have just started. Please feel free to comment there if you wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Way back in March 2007 you started a discussion at the 'Deep-throating' talk page. There is currently a discussion on related matters and I just wondered if you might be inclined to weigh in at all? Thanks very much.
 TyrS  chatties  08:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:LakeportBottles.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LakeportBottles.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Section Header

The Nodd I'm not sure why this article was deleted. Please advise. In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just give up Wily, they won't stop the spamming and you can't win by arguing from sources when they aren't looking at them. WuzzyKnees (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Someone_has_opened_a_drawer_of_socks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GLIC Article The article was removed July 1st from Serbian Wikipedia for same reasons. If the article is approved, I could make my own friendship circle website and movie marathon event...and put it on Wikipedia? Didn't know that thats what encyclopedias are for. There is only one organisation large enough, old enough and with big enough media coverage to be valid for an Article - Queeria, apart the fact it done alot for their LGBT community. GLIC on the other hand done nothing important, only made friend circle that embodies below 0,01% of our population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.194.34 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear WilyD,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Hammons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Hammons 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/Bill Hammons (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.

You participated in the first AFD discussion, the article was recreated and I thought you might want to comment. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian (2nd nomination)

The template on this wasn't added properly, I fixed it for you. Could you provide details on how you came to conclusion of Keep. If you are happy you came to the correct decision I intend to send it to WP:DRV. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I see three deletes in there. So you feel the 'keeps' sufficiently address the deletion reason using good policy/guideline based arguments?--Otterathome (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pay no attention to Otter, WilyD. He never accepts the outcome of any AFD that goes against his personal view.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unusual userfy request

Hi WilyD. Could you possibly start a section on my talk page (or email me, if this is not appropriate) with the edit summary I added where I identified the subject of the deleted article Kendriya Vidyalaya, RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow? I'd like to discuss it with the editor who started the deleted article. Thanks! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No part of the article itself, just my edit summary, the one I added to the article in the revision before I nominated it for speedy deletion.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of toys in the Demonic Toys films

There were just 3 keep !votes (not based in any policy, given that this article - and the articles it was derived from - is completely unsourced), 1 keep/merge, 4 delete (including the nom; 1 without policy-based arguments), and 3 merge. I don't really see a consensus to "keep", nor do I see (given that this is not a vote) how policy could lead to a "keep" closure. I would appreciate if you could expand on your closing rationale. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Onems13subh/sandbox

"It was a dream that was just waiting to happen."

"The company spokesperson reasoned that just Subhrajit, who is not only about model and talent, has a sports legacy behind his (he has been a state level champion in athletics player during his school days) which only elevates his to suit the role of the brand ambassador to a 'T"."

"Way to go boy!"

etc

You really claiming this is not promotional? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask again. You really claiming this is not promotional? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Barry Saks redirect

Hello... I noticed that you removed the CSD template I put on Barry saks and made it a redirect to Baritone saxophone. I had thought about that before placing the template on the page, but I did a Google search prior and the term turned up no references whatsoever to a saxophone. Was curious why you made it a redirect instead. Thanks. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No Fair Use in UserSpace?

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted - fair use is never allowed in the userspace. WilyD 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting rule, I hadn't seen that one. Now that I've looked, I still don't see it and I feel I should ask, where is it? I do believe this is the rudest thing that's happened to me in my years here. htom (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My sexuality

I'm gay.

Incidentally, you can sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ WilyD 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Question?

How to Reedit Bandaranayake Central College, Veyangoda page with under the copyright policies? --MR 14:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manowiki123 (talk • contribs) y u delete mah page?

Deletion review for 3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SplashScreen (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Run the World (song)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Run the World (song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SplashScreen (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jericho project issues

Hey, WilyD, I saw that you declined my G11 nom for the Jericho project page. (It still seems pretty darn promotional to me, but that's one of the things where YMMV applies pretty heavily, so no biggie). I did have other concerns with the article, though; specifically its copyright status. In particular, compare the "Jericho Model" section to this page. I couldn't find enough copied material to feel comfortable with a G12, so I just left it, but if the article's gonna be kept, it probably needs a thorough check. (I'll take out that section myself and see if I can find anything else, but it should probably have multiple eyes on it.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Close of West Wing AFDs

These are highly improper - your close is clearly a vote based on your own opinion of the article, rather than an evaluation of the discussion. Please consider re-opening them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any supervote. I'm just a little unsure what the close actually means, particularly this part: "so the "fails WP:N" argument is responded, but I can't determine whether it's successfully responded to or not". Also, Admins can weigh up the strength of arguments; If you believe the source shown wasn't sufficient to satisfy WP:N then delete should be the answer as lack of significant coverage in reliable sources is then shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Barack Obama on Twitter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barack Obama on Twitter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at IRWolfie-'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:AIV

Hi WillyD, there is an issue at AIV, would you please have a look at the page history. Thanks Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you haven't noticed there is an IP hopping sock there as well. Maybe a range block - up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this - that's my first persistent vandal who new about AIV. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin's kitten for you!

Thanks for your help with Trnmshj (talk · contribs) and all the IPs.

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Muhammad Agung Pribadi

Just thought I'd let you know that when you deleted this article you missed the talk page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• So I did. But someone else got it. WilyD 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for erasing article deerraammaa

Wiki user Wily D .... May i please just say that this page was created to represent our love for a very close friend of ours. It wasnt designed to, in anyway shape or form, tarnish or disrespect her.

It is a statement used among a group of close friends and has pretty much become a tradition as it were. It is something that will stay with a our group of good friends for the rest of our lives and we shall take it with us in our hearts.... cause in the end its all in gd jest, words binding a group together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt2882 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mt2882 (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BO on twitter

next nomination for deletion or merge or proposed rfc or whatever, could you help me write it? You seem to be able to explain the policies very well, what do you say?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page and also to add in Barack Obama on Social Media may be more stuffy than "on Twitter" however that is too narrow and ignores his accomplishments in using social media.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, btw are you aware that the AK on Twitter article was merged a while ago and that BO on Twitter is the only survivor?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

An Administrator Barnstar for you!

	The Administrator Barnstar
	Thank you for your many contributions about the knowledge and mystery of Wikipedia articles especially the edits of sandboxes, economy, and helping many Bots !--Mr.Goblins (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

EthicalWiki

Thanks for closing. I'm actually glad it was deleted. It was proving to be a huge waste of community resources. Keeping it would have only kept arguments going and we already lost an exceptional editor over it. I'm sad to see Woz2 go. He could have been really helpful in my efforts to whip the {{request edit}} process into shape :-( I even got heckled over Twitter on this stupid article I didn't even create. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Environmental microbiology

Hi, I'm not sure where I should respond to your rejection, so I'll do so here. I don't understand why the article shouldn't be deleted. Spam is not the only issue. There's also a potential conflict of interest and copyright issues. The article was written primarily by an editor who admits that he/she may have a conflict of interest, someone who has never, as far as I can tell, cited sources other than books published by Caister/Horizon Press in this or any other article. Additionally, some of the passages I checked were copied word-for-word from the books that were cited. I don't know if the rest of the article was plagiarized since Google Books doesn't have all the books listed in the reference. CatPath (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. I'll let the matter rest and work on improving the article instead. CatPath (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually at a loss now on the copyright issue. A number of passage are copied from the cited books. However, the editor's user page states that permission is obtained from the publisher in advance. So is this still a copyright violation? I don't think it is, but I still believe that the copied text should be reworded. CatPath (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your comments to the other editor. My questions are answered. CatPath (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

America

According to both logic and the Oxford English dictionary, America means the whole land mass of the western hemisphere including both North and South America. If North and South America are not both parts of America, then what else are they part of??? For Usonians to arrogate (i.e. claim for oneself something that is not properly one's own) the name America to themselves alone, is the very definition of arrogant. It's also completely absurd: how can America be in North America? Then such arrogant and ignorant people actually wonder why others around the world have such a low opinion of them and their country!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Eurobank notes/ GA1

Why do you believe it should not be deleted, it is never going to be used. Obtund^Talk 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Pollution

Why did you delete my redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pollution ?

Welcome back

Glad to see your name active again in this project. We both know that we always been in the opposite side of each other when it came to notability and CSDs in particular, but I've always trusted your judgement there, and we need as many active administrators as we can in that area. Welcome back. Secret ^account 09:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Pollution

Could you please restore the redirect ? --Ne0 (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC) --Ne0 (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Vblock

Could you please restore Vblock or provide me with a copy Vblock or userfy Vblock please? Thanks! Qthrul (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yuerrazikk-opa-gi "comb" lake monster

Hi WilyD, This article is a typical creation of IP serial vandal Eddie Ostroski, and the IP addresses are as usual from around Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania - so I've notified User:EncMstr who has created a filter to block him. Ostroski never responds to messages on any of his talk pages, so there's no point in trying to engage with him. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

After being deleted, this article has just been recreated on the talk page. Cheers. Bahudhara (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Blocked

Considering that from the time that I received my first warning at 02:47, 11 August 2012‎ and I had already stopped tagging articles for CSD by 23:56 10 August 2012‎, a 2-hour difference, was it really necessary to block me for "disruptive editing" for a full 24 hours? ⁓ Hello71 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, was it necessary to do this after another 8 hours had passed since the first warning? ⁓ Hello71 03:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not misfiring!

Hello, this was not a misfiring of a bot. I myself checked it and tagged for copyvio, see Talk:Perugu_Ramakrishna_(Poet)#Contested_deletion, after that I have removed problematic portion and started rewriting the article. --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Work in progress

Thanks for work in progress. Actually, you are right, the company did a switch in its model after feedbacks received during a Tech Conference in London last June, while showing the 1st version of the product. It's now an application which will be free of charge on iTunes, like I wrote it. And it will be launched next month during Techcrunch Disrupt in San Francisco that way. I did some corrections regarding the legal status of the company, after validations. Thank again. Philjeudy (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the Chris Par page

Hi,

I'm pretty sure the Chris Par page that you recently decided was not a hoax may have been a judgement in error... the page includes such gems as:

• Chris Par (born January 5, 1989), known by his stage names 2par, King Par, and Chris Party is an American rapper, award winning socialite,[1] renaissance man, revolutionary, and politician.

• The charges were later dropped by owner of Ocean Meadows Golf Club on the account of a requested public apology over his blog promoting his run for California Governor that year as an officially registered write in candidate of which he claims "Like Columbus" he was "put in a moment of tough decision making and took a risk" and that "whether or not the risk was good or bad, it was taken and changed the course of history making it possible for you and I to stand here today" saying that although a bad decision was made, through perseverance, Columbus righted that wrong and founded the greatest country on earth, similar to his plan to "change the world forever" replacing the work with technology and making everyone rich elected Governor of California that year.

• He has since then infamously fallen from a balcony at the MTV VMAS, the big MTV Video Music Award show they put on every year, and in this one year recovery from surgery stitching the half of his foot broken from the bottom half on medical leave from school and work, he has so far recorded 3 albums released on iTunes, Swag, Swag Juice, and 2par, with accompanying free mixtapes, ran for Mayor of Santa Barbara, 3rd District Supervisor, and rogue upon a constitutional convention amending the requirements to run so to do so, President of the United States in the 2012 electoral year, a convention, postponed 4 times, yet to be held.

If not in error, that particular page needs some serious consideration for AfD...

Best,

Reynhart (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 07:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos (2nd nomination) seems fine overall - thanks for taking the trouble. But a small nitpick, if I may. WP:TRIVIA does not mean what you seem to suggest (that we should exclude trivial matters). What that shortcut actually says is "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way.". In other words, that's a stylistic point about the way we arrange sections in articles. A better shortcut for your point is WP:TRIVCOV. That's an argument to avoid and so is comparatively weak. Warden (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have commented further at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#Miscellaneous or trivial?. Warden (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

God day, Wily! I am Mihaela. I created article "Piipii" about one Hawaiian princess, but I agreed with User:KAVEBEAR to delete it, because she was not very important lady or member of nobility, but just very noble person without knowing of politics.--Miha (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you decide and I will respect your acts. I do not think, however, that redirects are "very cheap", but some are not very useful.--Miha (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Muthoot Pappachan Group

Nice rescue. Dlohcierekim 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.

Wily, thanks for taking a look at Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc..

When I raised the issue of copyvio, I was referring to this version [2].

The problem was that there was a lot of direct overlap with [3], as well as some close paraphrase. The fundinguniverse article was not, and is not, referenced.

Then, an editor reworded material, as shown in these edits. [4]

For example, the earlier version included "In 1972, PHI placed a major order for new helicopters costing about $5 million. The purchase increased the company's fleet to 233 aircraft and by 1974; the company was employing 1,000 people. At the time of its 25th anniversary, they were maintaining operations at 13 Gulf Coast and 5 foreign bases. By the end of the decade, the company's fleet achieved a total of 308 aircraft, the largest non-military fleet of helicopters in the world." This text is almost exactly the same as the fundinguniverse article.

The later version changed some of the words around, e.g., "PHI placed a major order for new helicopters costing about $5 million" was changed to "the company put in an order for modern helicopters totaling $5 million." Here is the whole section.

"In 1972, the company put in an order for modern helicopters totaling $5 million. These acquisitions grew the company's inventory to 233 helicopters and the company was employing 1,000 people. Upon their 25th anniversary, they were sustaining operations at 5 international bases and 13 coast sites. Toward the latter part of the 70’s, PHI’s fleet achieved a total of 308 helicopters, the biggest non-military group of aircraft on the globe."

Perhaps when you said "duplication is minimal" you were looking at the later version, and using the duplication detector, which only gets verbatim matches?

Bottom line is that changing "modern" to "new" and "world" to "globe" does not address the copyvio issue. Most of the article is still very close paraphrase of published, copyright material.

I am referring to this policy. WP:Copy-paste#Can_I_copy_and_paste_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit.3F

Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It was re-written to meet Copyvio policy, and only used fact and figures. "inventory to 233 helicopters" "25th anniversary" "5 international bases and 13 coast sites" "total of 308 helicopters" "biggest non-military group of aircraft on the globe" all of these phases and words are just the numbers, and important info for the article.--‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some close paraphrasings in that version; I'm not sure they're substantial enough to constitute infringement (but I'm not sure, perhaps, that they're not either.) I do think that they're not "unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving". Since there's only a single author, probably the history can be partially deleted but the licence retained, since they'll still be attributed (with Jetijonez's permission?), but I'm not really an expert. The best thing to do is bring it up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and ask for advice, I would, but I should be getting home at the moment. If you don't, I probably will later. WilyD 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, done, thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for jumping in of the Americas article....needs lots of work.. great to see someone finally help in cleaning up the article. Moxy (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Spunti e ricerche; rivista d'italianistica

Hi,

You recently deleted the page Spunti e ricerche; rivista d'italianistica for copyright infringement. I am the holder of the copyright and have now sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as required to verify this.

Could you please re-instate this page?

Thanks, Ed. Imtechnology (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

«ҚазМұнайГаз» Ұлттық компаниясы» АҚ

The reason I nominated this for R3 deletion is not because it is not English, it is because it is missing the opening quotes, so therefore is an unlikely typo. (There are two sets of closing quotes, and only one set of opening quotes) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

«Қазақстанның «АҚ ЖОЛ» Демократиялық партиясы»

The reason I nominated this as R3 is not because it is not English, it is because the entire title is encapsulated in quotation marks, thus is an unlikely typo. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

March 8/14 block

Theyre also orphans in addition to being misnamed.Lihaas (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tactilize

Could I have an update? Thank you Philjeudy (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Maybe I'm being a bit sensitive, but perhaps you're not WP:AGF. Not just to myself, but others too. [5] [6] [7] [8] "Please ''read'' [[WP:CSD|the list of speedy deletion criteria]] before trying to apply them." - Perhaps you're being a bit aggressive. ⁓ Hello71 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And [9]. How does "Unremarkable place with no outgoing links and no non-trivial incoming links." have anything to do with racism? ⁓ Hello71 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

It turns out that circumstances have changed and Michael Pinto, whose article you deleted, now has played in a fully pro league making the Deletion discussion moot. I made a similar mistake! See my talkpage for details, but maybe you could restore the article when you have a minute? --Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Pinto

I'll keep it simple: In July, I've explained that Michael Pinto, as well as the other players who had a page created, was going to play in a full pro league. Instead of waiting, someone decided to nominate his page to speedy deletion (just like you did now), as well as the other players, throwing away all my work. Although I was right, and as I've got plenty more things to do than spending my day in Wikipedia, I decided to let it go. As of today, he has already played in a fully pro league this season, so perhaps you should check out the list of fully professional leagues WP:FPL. If you had spent some time researching, you'd find out that Sporting Clube de Portugal B plays in Segunda Liga which is a.. full pro league. So I'm asking you, and your speedy deletion friends, to please stop deleting someone else's job. RRR22 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As a beginner, I didn't know it was that easy to restore an article. Anyway, I had no work at all since I went to another page (Michael Gonçalves Pinto) and moved the last edition available. Sorry for any inconvenience, keep up the good work! RRR22 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I (now) know that. That's why I haven't created a page for all Sporting B players, as I'm waiting for them to actually set foot on pitch. Thanks my friend, RRR22 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How does Pinto pass WP:NFOOTBALL? He has not played in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 10:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, he does, the League has changed its name but this has not been reflected at FPL. I'll restore all 3. GiantSnowman 10:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, cross posting - all 3 restored. Though in fairness you could have been clearer that the league had changed name... GiantSnowman 10:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The AfD closed because the players had not yet played in a fully-pro league. When I re-deleted them, that still appeared to be the case as the league they played in was not listed at WP:FPL. However, all restored now no harm done. GiantSnowman 10:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at TheChampionMan1234's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheChampionMan1234 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin-Gruber Anastomosis

All right, rather than nominating the page for deletion, I have added some tags to the page,if you disagree please explain why, and feel free to fix it. --TheChampionMan1234 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland

That's a strange interpretation of copyright. And as you can see from the log, not everyone agrees with you on this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maryjun Takahashi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese, Model and Filipino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"No rationale for deletion given"

Thank you for your contributions at RfD recently, however most of your statements have included the phrase "no rationale given for deletion" (or a similar wording). This is not a problem in and of itself, as redirects are often nominated without a valid rationale given. However, on every occasion you have used it in the past three days a rationale has been given and your statement is thus factually incorrect. Whatever the rest of your rationale is, the closing administrator is unlikely to attach much weight to it if it contains such a blatantly obvious inaccuracy.

If you want your contributions to be taken into account then you need to stop making these fundamental errors and learn the difference between the three situations below:

No rationale given for deletion.

The nominator has not given any reason, has given a reason that does not relate to policy (e.g. I don't like it) or the reason is solely one that is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect (such as "unused").

The rationale for deletion given is not valid for this case.

The nominator has given a valid reason for deletion, but it does not apply to this redirect. For example if the nomination reason is that the redirect is incorrect, but it is actually related to the subject, or you think the reason is valid but that deletion would bring no benefits.

I disagree with the rationale given.

A valid and applicable reason for deletion has been given, but you disagree with it. For example, you believe that a redirect nominated as not being notable enough is in fact worthy of a redirect.

The rationale given is valid and applicable, but there are other reasons to keep that I believe are stronger

A valid and applicable reason for deletion has been given, and you agree with the nominator about that, but there are other reasons that the redirect should be kept that you believe outweigh the reasons to delete. For example a redirect is an obscure synonym but it is required for attribution purposes.

I will continue to point out at the individual RfDs if you get it wrong, as I believe this is the best way to help you learn where you're going wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• We may have to agree to disagree, but there is the world of difference between "I think the redirect should be deleted because the term is not mentioned in the article" and "I think the redirect should be deleted because cheese is delicious" (and as an aside I completely reject your assertion that cheese is delicious). People don't (normally) nominate articles for deletion if they don't think they should be deleted, that is they see some value in deletion. Not being mentioned in the target is a reason we might delete a redirect, as it might be unhelpful, misleading, confusing or simply incorrect. It is not necessary for nominators to spell that out explicitly every time (indeed requiring them to do so would be rather bureaucratic and possibly bitey), instead we make reasonable inferences about why the nominator feels deletion would be beneficial. Even if we disagree with their reasoning, it can be rather uncivil to dismiss that as "no rationale given" when they have given one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Stale drafts

I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but wanted to drop you a note about it anyway (re Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alucard 16/BB10USA). Uzma Gamal and I have uncovered many many many stale Big Brother elimination tables sitting around in userspace, and been working on nominating them for deletion. There may be good faith reasons for these to exist in so many places, but it starts to strain believability that so many independent users just happen to need the table and then forget about it. I don't think Uzma or I would generally dink around in people's drafts. Just happened to be what Uzma uncovered after a search on a phrase from the table after I nominated a bunch of them a few weeks ago. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a fuller explanation

Hello, could you provide a fuller explanation of your analysis and rationale for the closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer? There are many other articles of similar stature and the simple "no consensus" does not help the community. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you updated your closing rationale, however, there's still a few issues that need clear up. You say , "Rough balance of numbers", which could be true just looking at numbers, but several "keep" comments have some serious problems and I'm not sure if they've been discounted (as they should be) or not:

• "Keep I am calling this a bad-faith nomination. This and the other AfDs should be ignored. Web Warlock" -> Out of the ~15 participants to this AfD + you as closing admin, only one seemed to think it was a "bad faith nomination". As an unsubstanciated bad faith allegation, it is a bad faith comment itself, and so should not be included in your count.
• "keep per BOZ. And yes, I realize there is a long discussion above, and yes I agree with BOZ. Hobit" -> per WP:AFDFORMAT, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion" and "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments". This use of "Per BOZ" without further argumentation, when user BOZ comment has been seriously contradicted, looks like a vote (see Wikipedia:PERNOMINATOR). It doesn't add anything to the discussion nor does it address any argument raised by those in favor of deletion, and it's only a way to circumvent discussion. Should be discounted.
• "Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs" -> Same thing, the only contribution of this user to the AfD, no attempt at discussion nor to address the contradictions raised against BOZ's argument. A vote that should be discounted.
• "Keep per BOZ. Don't bother with your WP:UNCIVIL badgering. CallawayRox 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)" -> Same thing, vote which openly refuses discussion + uncivility (calling attempts at discussion "badgering"). Shouldn't be allowed to count.
• "Keep all First, because I believe that the coverage is sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG [...] But most originally, and specifically speaking to Bushranger's and Rorschacma's merge and oppose, is because there is [[WP:NSMT|no single merge target]] for these creatures [...] Jclemens" -> as I said in answer to that (and I don't know if it has been taken into account), this user is making two contradicting claims, first that coverage meets GNG, and second, that coverage doesn't meet GNG (per his own WP:NSMT essay stating "when content is not separately notable") and would need an exception of "no single merge target" to GNG to survive. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Do not make conflicting recommendations" so this comment should be discounted.

"Per user X" comments should be accepted only when uncontroversial, ie when the statement of user X has not already been rebutted by a number of other users, otherwise they're just discussion trump cards and are effectively used as votes, supporting user X's statement not by "strength of argument" but by head count. Considering all this, the count is now far from a "rough balance", and even if "Per user X" were accepted, then there are two comments (Web Warlock's and Jclemens') that can only be discounted and we still don't have a "rough balance". Could you please elaborate on which argument you discounted (or are ready to discount now), and if it affects the "rough balance" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but what about Jclemens' conflicting argument ? As for "Per X" arguments, though WP:ATA is an essay, it is linked to in WP:AfD and isn't contradictory to the greater principle that AfDs are not votes, so it can have some merit. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is a guideline, and states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". So could you shed some light on the underlying strength of "Per BOZ" arguments which refuse to adress criticism of BOZ's original argument, that according to you, tipped the balance in favor of "no consensus" instead of "delete" ? Looking at the articles in question, do you really give credit to statements claming such articles really have "significant coverage" rather than trivia listings of appearance in other media ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You provided counter arguments to BOZ's arguments. Some of us disagreed and felt BOZ had explained things quite well. I (for one) could have cut-and-paste his arguments, or reworded them if that's what I felt it took to get my voice to "count". Instead of doing that I simply cited someone who made the argument better than I could. On the delete side there were a fair number of !votes that were basically "per nom"/JNN type things. Are those to be discarded too? The simple fact is, what's at issue is reliable sourcing. And some folks felt that the sources in question met WP:RS and some didn't. Both sides had reasonable points, but there was no consensus on the issue. This isn't too shocking as consensus on how licensing agreements impact the independence of the source is less than clear (GPL/OGL in particular but any license that lacks significant editorial control in general). Hobit (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That you agreed with BOZ didn't mean that AfD was no longer based on discussion, and if you wanted to express disagreement over counterarguments adressed to BOZ, actually answering instead of just saying +1 for BOZ would have been a good way to give weight to your opinion. I think the WP:ATA reasoning on that case is sensible, as long as they are uncontroversial, "Per X" comments are acceptable as "citing someone who made the argument better than I could", but when X's argument has already been heavily criticized and no effort is made to adress that, "Per X" becomes a vote. On the contrary, I think "delete" comments were substanciated enough and that's easily verifiable. I don't agree that both sides have reasonable points, given the largely superior ratio of deleted D&D creature article vs those kept. But my point here is rather that several of the "keep" comments should be discounted, and even discounting only Web Warlock's and Jclemens' arguments could already be enough to tip the outcome towards delete rather than no consensus.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I see where you are coming from, but do you really want to see the exact same arguments made 4 times? BOZ explained my thoughts better than I could. So I simply agreed. This included his responses to you. I could have made the same arguments he did and you could have said "I answered those arguments above" and we'd have added a lot of words and no content. This isn't a case of one side being right, it's a case of two sides both having valid arguments. Arguing in circles forever doesn't really make one argument stronger than the other (though there is a form of conflict resolution that takes into account the strength of opinion). It just makes it longer... Hobit (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

autoblock I've blocked you as wikipedia told to me

twiter is the best

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sept collines sont sur le dessus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this user contacted you either, but I've indefblocked the account – see User talk:Twiter is the best#Blocked. Graham87 15:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most popular Android apps by number of downloads

Hello! You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most popular Android apps by number of downloads. May I ask you to revise the closing statement so that it would mention WP:NOTYELLOW and the reasons you find it unconvincing? There was a discussion of its applicability. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

On the genus of a graph

You have previously commented on the redirect On the genus of a graph. There have been significant changes, including the target, since the nomination was made. You may wish to revisit the discussion and confirm whether or not your previous views remain unchanged. Having been relisted the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Russell G. Lloyd, Jr.

Thank you; I had expected argument based off 100k/3rd in Indiana, if any, rather than "too stale". While the articles I do are normally single-edit creations, I have all the references in advance and they're very formulaic; I'm planning on finishing the few remaining redlinks at Idaho House of Representatives though someone else has been active there, too, within the last 2 months; this should be next after those for me. Dru of Id (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

I do hope you can tell I wasn't being serious. I was quoting children's TV shows and dead politicians, after all. Besides: The people who leave those kinds of messages (Shouted Demands, as I think of them) never come back to discuss the issue. There's no way the person who left the message I replied to ever would have seen it.—chbarts (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the pages I marked in my user space. I appreciate it. Will Maltby (talk  ⁄  contributions) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Thank you for reading through the contentious MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) and closing it. Your closing statement was:

The result of the discussion was Weak keep - large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page. WilyD 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the assessment of the consensus in full: that "large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not". However, I believe that that assessment leads to a different result than "weak keep".

Robofish (talk · contribs) wrote, "Remove the soapboxing content." He was explicitly joined by Beyond My Ken and myself who revised our positions from "delete" to "remove the soapboxing content" and implicitly by the editors who considered the "large chunks of content [to be] problematic" per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG.

There is a long-standing precedent that MfD is the proper venue for reviewing pages that have both problematic and unproblematic content. See for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag in August 2011.

In July 2010, there was a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. More recently, the issue was discussed at the RfC Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of userpages? (July 2012). Taking into account the discussions in July 2010 and July 2012 and MfD precedent, the closer wrote:

I am closing this discussion with the outcome: There is clearly no consensus to adopt the proposed language. A misleading announcement may have distorted discussion somewhat, but most of the editors commenting are experienced and must be presumed to have read the proposal they are commenting on. This will not stop MfD discussions of pages based only on parts of the page content -- a page containing inappropriate content for user space is not automatically off-limits to MfD simply because other content on the page is appropriate. DES ^(talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider revising your close to "The result of the discussion was remove the large chunks of problematic content and keep the large chunks of unproblematic content"?

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Deleted

If my personal page has been deleted before, can I create it again and keep it blank? DarkFireYoshi 02:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Xray Crystallography

WilyD, are you going to finish the move of Portal:Xray Crystallography? The deletion tag is still in place and at least one subpage has not been moved. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Miju language

Hi,

Could you revert (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored) ? It looks like those were changes in the redirect, and so don't belong in the article history.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong edits. It now looks as though the article was repeatedly deleted[10][11] and restored.[12][13] That never happened, and so is a false history. Look at the last edit: you only moved the article, but the diff shows you creating it. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll ask elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Corvus energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Foss and AMPS

Doctor Browning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WAG

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Continual recreation

Hello, Kannan29 (talk · contribs) continues to recreate an article, Vinothkannan, which you deleted less than an hour ago. Could you possibly salt the article and give him a firm warning to stop? Appears to be an autobiography as well. Cheers, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask him nicely to stop recreating it, but it just appeared he was ignoring the warnings. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

NM, you did it. Although it still does appear to be an autobiography, so I'll drop a nice note under what you said. Doesn't matter, we'll see what happens. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Places in Manchester

The places I requested for deletion have the tag "Greater Manchester" which is a metropolitan county but the boroughs within that county are main government areas. The category Category:Districts of Greater Manchester has one subcategory which deals with Manchester city itself but I think there is room for subcategories covering at least some of the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester. I realise that Category:Geography of Rochdale is also a subcategory but I don't think it would be wrong to have a Category:Places in Rochdale category instead. I am still looking through to see which places could fit where before I create subcategories, because it is plausible that some boroughs might not have enough articles to warrant a separate subcategory. I felt some of the names should reflect the boroughs rather than a metrpolitan county which is only used for ceremonial purposes and some sharing of inter-authority services. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I used Twinkle for the request, which might be the source of the problem. As it happens I've lived in Oldham, Leeds and Bradford so I know the kind of stick-in-the-mud type of folks you mean. That said, if you feel unable to complete the request it is no problem. I can live with it. Green Giant (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your close on "List of Zoey 101 characters"

Hi, can you consider amending your closing rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zoey 101 characters ?

First, I think the consensus does actually lean toward merge in the discussion. In addition to Shooterwalker's comment and mine,user Postdlf's 2nd comment makes it quite clear he doesn't support unconditional "keep" and rather agrees a merge is appropriate. Even if Postdlf did not change his bolded recommendation, AfDs are based more on discussion than on strict voting and I think this comment hasn't been taken into account in your evaluation as it should have. Beside, Jclemens' and DGG's comments blatantly contradict every single piece of guideline we have on lists, that is, WP:LISTN, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Could you elaborate on what strength you found in these comments that made them prevail over the 3 supporting a merge per actual guidelines ?

Second, with your reference to Wikipedia:Article size and the article being over 60kb, you seem to be overlooking the fact that a large portion of these 60kb is unsuitable (as shown in the discussion) and likely to be removed whether the article is kept or not. Thus I don't think Wikipedia:Article size is relevant here and it probably shouldn't appear in your rationale.

Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. However I still disagree that keep is numerically stronger, as I have said, Postdlf's argument is in favor of merge, AfDs not being based on votes but on arguments and discussion. I also disagree that that keep would be stronger policy-wise, for 2 reasons:

1) Wikipedia:Article size is an editing guideline, and as such, only deals with questions of size, not content. As the nomination made it clear, the AfD was based on content and notability issues, not on size. The only relevant guidelines are thus WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The list is not notable according to WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and the latter explicitely recommends a course of action (merging) in case of absence of notability, not merely suggesting the list "isn't ideal", contrary to your claim (and if a guideline says the article "isn't ideal", why then don't you mention that in your rationale ?). WP:LENGTH, because it doesn't state that any article would become notable when reaching 60kb, is not relevant enough here to have any bearing on AfD outcome.

2) I have not seen any keep supporter advancing the argument of WP:LENGTH. You're the only one mentionning it, and your interpretation of the editing guideline doesn't seem consensual considering the obvious contradiction with content guidelines that are more relevant in this case. As such, you can't claim that you're merely upholding policy against merge arguments that would clearly go against policy (because that isn't the case, policy actually recommends merge and not keep). Is that a case of supervoting ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok so at first you say ""Keep" is [...] policy-wise stronger (Article size says you probably need to split it" and then "Article length also really isn't much of a consideration in my close". Your two statements are contradictory, and so I'm still not seeing why you would say keep is policy-wise strong if the policy it involves isn't much of a consideration in your close. You're still not clear as to why WP:LENGTH would take precedence over WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT anyway, or why you apparently ignored Postdlf's 2nd comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're still refusing to answer my two simple question, thus I will request DRV.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

SD of "Sleep Rape"

link

I marked this page as a CSD for the fact that it was vandalism. My justification for this, which I feel compelled to provide, is that it meets a few criteria:

1. Duplicated an existing topic (AGF, so didn't mark it solely for that)
2. Used very biased points of view (again, AGF)
3. Had absolutely no sources
4. Was a very short article
5. Seems a lot like original research (sign from "Slut Walk", consent cannot be provided by someone who is asleep)

For these reasons, I decided that the page was vandalism. At the very least, I believe it should have been SD'd as a duplication of an existing topic. I do see your viewpoint that it wasn't vandalism, but I would appreciate it if you could go back and take a second, thorough look at it. I welcome your feedback, and thanks for reading this little short note!

Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion??

Hi WilyD! I had created an article on J.H.Tarapore School yesterday and found out today that it has been deleted. When I researched a bit I found that the reason was for 'promotion' or 'advertising'. Let me tell you that this page was about a School in India and it was certainly NOT USED FOR PROMOTION OF THE SCHOOL. So let me request you that please do the needful. Thanks. --ΩΨ Soham Banerjee ΨΩ 04:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

gwickwire | Leave a message 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Tckma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tckma (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Zoological conspiracy theories AfD

Must say I am disappointed to see another close of yours not adequately addressing the reasons opposing a keep vote. You completely ignored the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS reasons provided in my nomination of the article and my argument about the subject supposedly evidenced in the sources really being one of a general tendency in the Arab and Muslim community to believe misinformation about Israel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he explained his reasoning quite well in his closing. Wikipedia articles are based on what the reliable sources say, not what you believe is real or not. There is ample coverage of these conspiracy theories against Israel which are covered in mainstream sources in nations outside the middle east. This includes Discover Magazine, which he even cited as an example in his closing. Its not indiscriminate since there are specific requirements to be listed. And its not just a single news event, this is something that keeps getting coverage over the years, and they mention past events as well at times. Dream Focus 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE refers to Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information exists does not mean it belongs here. In this case we have a bunch of non-notable news events cobbled together on the basis that a handful of sources briefly mention one or more of the events in connection with another one of the events. Wily erred baddly when noting Discover Magazine in the closing decision as it only mentioned the shark attack conspiracy theory, but there is already an article on the shark attacks that mentions said conspiracy theory so it is not an argument for keeping the "zoological" article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you perhaps consider relisting the discussion for another week?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Would it make any possible difference at all? Dream Focus 00:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm seeing legitimate complaints about three different AfD closures you've made in the past week or two. If I see a fourth anytime soon, I'm going to have to start a request for de-adminship on the basis that you have been supervoting and not interpreting consensus correcting pbp 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm watching the DRV(s), of course, and I'll see what they say. Closing contentious discussions is always going to attract flak, no matter what you do. There's probably some indication in the DRV that I'm a little reluctant to close as no consensus (although it looks pretty marginal - it's not clear to me that if I was quicker to decide no consensus, there still wouldn't be a substantial number of editors who disagreed with that, too). WilyD 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

extreme auto customs

Hi WillyD,

I must admit - that text is not my own personal writing, but the text that the new Page Curation Tool automatically puts on the page creator's talkpage when listing a Speedy. So - I can't take the credit for it, but it's heartening to know that the WMF's attempts to massage some more human-sounding template warnings etc. seems to be paying off. By the way, if you've not already tried/were aware of the aforementioned tool - give it a go. 'Tis excellent - this is the first time I've actually WANTED to do NPP for ages! Wittylama 07:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I just noticed you gave me a barnstar too! Thank you very much but, considering the explanation I just gave, I don't think I can honestly accept this one. Would you mind if instead of putting that award on my userpage (as I would otherwise do with a barnstar) that I move it instead to the Page Curation Tool's feedback page and "re-gift" it to the team that wrote the tool and the associated messages? Wittylama 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw your change to the barnstar - fair enough! I'll copy it across to the page curation talkpage with an explanatory comment right away. Thanks very much :-) Wittylama

Done. Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation#Barnstar. Wittylama 07:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese

Hi WilyD. I was wondering if you'd be willing to rephrase or reconsider your close on this AfD? The current wording of your close makes it appear that you believe that the sources presented by NorthAmerica1000 and Milowent are notable, and thus you discounted comments pointing out their lack of applicability - in other words, it looks like you're placing a supervote based on your interpretation of the sources, rather than interpreting the consensus on the AfD. Commenting that people who supported a merge option were somehow misunderstanding the discussion and that thus you also discounted them also seems fairly non-neutral. I'm assuming these things are more artifacts of the way you phrased your close than of you actually having placed a supervote close, but it would be really helpful if you could expand your close to address the basis for your decision beyond "the delete voters misunderstand, and also didn't they see the sources the ARS presented?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It was fine close. Most people said keep, and that the sources were fine. Consensus was obviously keep. Do you see where it says "Comment – More sources:" and then list things labeled "significant coverage"? Anyone who spent time reading through them would see it gave significant coverage, and the fact some people didn't understand that justifies the closing administrators comment about their comments "appear to be more guesses as to what one expects than an analysis of the article and situation." Dream Focus 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Dream Focus. Half the people voted Keep and half voted Merge. Therefore, it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted pbp 19:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD isn't a count. Its based on the strength of arguments. Dream Focus 23:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you change your tune fast [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If there was a merge discussion on the talk page, and you couldn't even get half the people to agree it should be merged, then the article would not be merged. Saying "merge" in these cases, just means to delete the article, since you know the information merged over will be very little and most likely none. There was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Dream Focus 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying vote counting is ok? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pizza cheese

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pizza cheese. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I view the decision to essentially ignore the roughly 40% of people who voted merge as improper. The proper close would have been "merge", "no consensus", or relist pbp 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Please help me ban Kwotkuku (talk) as well. I do believe this person and Kwort are the same person. Kwotkuku sent me personal threats and wrote abuse on my talk page (see talk) right after you blocked Kwort.

Thanks!!

~ Acsian88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Question:Rada Manufacturing

I was hoping you could help me by explaining Rada Manufacturing was taken down? As it was stated the sources were not reliable the article did not need sources because it was explaining the company. I would disagree with the sources not being reliable. The ABC news coverage is a credible reporting company. I did post the picture of the company to readers can get an idea with what the company looks like. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Knightia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightia13 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page: COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art

Hi WilyD. I wanted to inquire about the deletion of the COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art page. I understand that it was due to copyright infringement from the Philadelphia Museum of Art's Web site. COLLAB is a non-profit, volunteer driven affiliate of the Museum, and the Museum staff actually wrote the Wikipedia copy when COLLAB requested that we have our own page.

Given our affiliation, the museum's approval of us having our own entry, and the fact that they supplied the copy, is there a means to have the page reinstated?

Thank you!

Jedd Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeddnyc (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange Marcel Leroux decision

You appear to have missed all the citations and the leadership of a major French climate center and a nationwide award. You would have had to look through a lot of the discussion. Here I pull out the posts on the google scholar citations. For your ease of accumulation, the number of citations are 30, 124, 61, 74, and then as I kept finding more articles I stopped tabulating. The original search at google scholar was either dishonest or incompetent. Upon further reading your closing comment, this appears to be an intellectually dishonest lie "even its advocates don't seem to really believe it" It was the opposition, which only accumulated two votes that was half hearted, botched the google scholar search or perhaps they knew the forgone conclusion? Has nothing changed here a wikipedia? --Africangenesis (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I could find over 30 citations of his 1998 text in books and journal articles. [15]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"[16]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 [17] --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74[18]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More works in which he is the primary author:

"Analyse météorologique des pluies torrentielles des 12 et 13 novembre 1999 dans le Languedoc-Roussillon./Meteorological analysis of the torrential rains of …"M LEROUX - Géocarrefour, 2000 - persee.fr

"Les climats subtropicaux dits" méditerranéens" et les climats de la Méditerranée (2e partie)" M Leroux - L'Information géographique, 2002 - armand-colin.com

" La dynamique des situations météorologiques des 21-22 et 26-27 septembre 1992 dans le sud du couloir rhodanien / The dynamics of the meteorological patterns of 21-22 and 26-27 September 1992 in the southern Rhône corridor" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1993 lien Volume 68 lien Issue 68-2 lien pp. 139-152

"Paléométéorologie de la région de Taoudenni" M Leroux - 1991 - cat.inist.fr

"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France: autopsie des agglutinations anticycloniques des hivers de 1988 à 1992" M Leroux, S Aubert, J Comby, V Mollica… - Science et changements

"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France : autopsie de la situation anticyclonique du 19 décembre 1989 au 25 janvier 1990 / The winter rainfall deficiency in France : autopsy of the anticyclonic situation from the 19 December 1989 to the 25 January 1990" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1991 lien Volume 66 lien Issue 66-3 lien pp. 197-206

Works in which he is not the primary author, I will keep adding them here:

"Are There Solar Signals in the African Monsoon and Rainfall?" H Faure, M Leroux - Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions …, 1990

"Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the Last Glacial Maximum" AM Lezine, JP Tastet, M Leroux - Quaternary Research, 1994 - Elsevier

"Relationships Between Polar Highs Activity and Air Temperature Anomalies in the North Pacific Region" A Favre, M Leroux, A Gershunov - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2003

"POSTER: Relationships between the Features Variationsof Highs and Lows in the North Atlantic Region and North Atlantic Oscillationfrom 1950 to 2000" A Pommier, M Leroux - 1st International CLIVAR Science Conference, 2004

--Africangenesis (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. [19][20][21][22]--Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD is over, time to move on. As has already been pointed out, his citation counts are not particularly high. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

9 new references in major newspapers

I've added 9 new references from France's newspaper equivalences of the NY Times, the Le Figaro and Le Monde to the sandboxed version of the article. It was strange that a scientist of Marcel Leroux' obvious stature, was not being written about and quoted in major newspapers in France. His stature was apparent from the articles he was writing. He was the scientist solicited to write articles on any unusual weather patterns affecting France and N. Africa. It turns out the major newspapers are paywalled and don't allow google searches.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	A very difficult situation that you made look easy. Good on you for your GibraltarpediA MFD close. Achowat (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel

Made it into a table, just for you.

Article	project plan	series card
In May 2012, PeaceJam premiered Mayan Renaissance,[2] which documents the courageous fight of the Maya to reclaim their voice and determine their own future in Guatemala and throughout Central America and the broader struggle for rights taking place among indigenous peoples throughout Latin America.	In May 2012 we premiered Mayan Renaissance which documents the courageous fight of the Maya to reclaim their voice and determine their own future in Guatemala and throughout Central America and the broader struggle for rights taking place among indigenous peoples throughout Latin America	-
The second film, Children of the Light, is currently in pre-production stages and is set to premiere in December 2013. This film will document the peacemaking work of young people around the world who have been inspired by the teachings of Desmond Tutu.	We are currently fundraising and in pre-production stages for the second film, Children of the Light, which documents the peacemaking work of young people around the world that have been inspired by the teachings of Desmond Tutu. Children of the Light, will premiere in December 2013.	-
The third film of the series, Educating the Heart, inspired by the legacy of the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, will premiere in December 2014.	The third film of the series, Educating the Heart, inspired by the legacy of the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, will premiere in December 2014.	-
PeaceJam Foundation's Nobel Legacy Film Series features 13 Nobel Peace Laureates and their efforts to create a better future for all of humanity [1]. A total of 13 full-length documentaries will be produced with one release each year. These films will be made a permanent part of the PeaceJam Foundation's award-winning youth development curriculum that is implemented globally, inspiring youth to take action to address the most pressing issues of our time. In addition, these films will be featured on PBS, online, in film festivals, and on DVD.	-	Each unique and powerful film will be featured on PBS, in film festivals, on DVD, and online. In addition, the films will be made a permanent part of the PeaceJam Foundation’s award-winning youth development curriculum that is implemented globally, inspiring youth to take action to address the most pressing issues of our time.

Does that clear up any confusion over if the article has been copied from elsewhere? Ironholds (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am User:Okeyes (WMF) ;p. Accidentally tagged something while using my staff account *slaps his hand*. Ironholds (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on deleted Article

Hi there. I recently started an article on worker policing and was working offline before I added things to the edit page. However, before I add the content, the page was tagged for deletion and deleted. I am now adding all of the information and references to the page. Can you take a look at it and see if it is acceptable?

GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Choseng Trungpa

Hi WilyD, Concerning the article deletion. I discovered that the article was lined up for deletion by clicking on the 'What links here' in the toolbox of Choseng's article. There you will find this link: User:Cyde/List_of_candidates_for_speedy_deletion not a bot page, but a individual's page where they use an imperfect 'tool' to find deletion candidates. Following the protocol I have added the banner to prevent this article being deleted. As soon as Cyde has removed the candidacy the banner can be removed. If you can help to see that this is carried through that'd be great. Thanks.

Thanks for your attention and concern WilyD. I will leave the Admin User User:Cyde a message to mention that the banner is no longer there. I think his bot would have removed it soon anyway. Best wishes, Fountain Posters (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WilyD, the page problem seems to be okay now Fountain Posters (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adrianne Ahern

Hi WilyD, regarding Adrianne Ahern, there is still not a single reliable secondary source. Do you think that is an improvement? I looked for some myself and couldn't find any. Regards, heather walls (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Leroux

Hi. I notice you recently closed the AFD on Marcel Leroux. There is a copy of the article from fairly recently at User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux; I dunno if that needs to go or not. I don't much care; I'm just letting you know. I only noticed it because its the #7 google hit for Leroux :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's comment "I dunno if that needs to go or not. I don't much care" suggests that the fate of an article is suspended to his good will, i.e. if he'd cared that the article should "go" it will. Is that a fair representation of Wikipedia deletion policies or bragging? ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Now its being actively maintained [23], so I'd say it should be deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Should this page be deleted, you indeed made a mockery of the Wikipedia deletion policies by showing your whims are in fact, orders.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And now STA has re-created Talk:Marcel Leroux for his POV pushing. Oh joy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying William M. Connolley that your first intervention on the deletion of Marcel Leroux page was "• delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers"? How about your own POV?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the conversation seemed to be interrupted here. However, the conversation was continued away from this page... on William M. Connolley's talk page as can be seen here [24]... Quoting WilyD about a sandbox page that seem to annoy William M. Connolley: "You're probably right, but I don't think it'd be appropriate to delete a userspace version of an article about a subject deleted for failing WP:N, where it's believable it could pass WP:N. Too soon -". So notability was just the excuse, and a poor one according to the page's delete administrator!ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Find sources that show the subject meets the requirements of WP:N, and it can be restored. Until then, it can't. I could believe that such sources exist - but none have been presented, none have been found, after a discussion, so the presumption is that they don't exist. WilyD 19:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the soap boxing that is taking place Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux, it might be prudent to SALT the article pending consensus at a discussion to recreate it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• • It's on my watchlist, and presumably several other people's. Barring serious concerns about living subjects, I'm not sure there's a need to SALT a page. If there's a couple recreations that don't address the AfD closure, then yes. WilyD 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • You mean because of this: "Motion: The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so." Explains the "Damnatio memoriae" he so diligently pursues now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not William Connolley so I'm not sure why I should care. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prudent? Are you concerned your actions are inappropriate? What's next? Delete the deletion archive page?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How on earth can a noted scientist such as Leroux have his WP page deleted due to the machinations of William M Connolley (a low grade programmer of no notability) yet Connelly still has a WP page? It really brings WP into disrepute and lowers its reputation. ---- SO

Formal request to reverse your decision on Marcel Leroux as recommended before requesting deletion review

• The questioning of Marcel Leroux's notability was not done in good faith, as those proposing it and voting for it, did not make an effort to determine if Leroux was notable themselves. IRWolfie mischaracterized google scholar results, and WMC voted before there had been much presentation of evidence. The reasons for the request for deletion were not to improve wikipedia but to serve some agenda.

• Number of citations is not the only measure of notability. Being the head of an important research center is enough for notability on its own. Hmmm, just a chair would be enough, much less head of a lab. From WP:ACADEMIC "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)."

• Many newspaper article references have been found since the deletion, and the reason they were hard for internet search users and non-French speakers to find is clear. This confirms his notability. His position and accomplishments considered notable in France, because they are mentioned when citing his results and opinions, by writers finding his opinions worthy of serious consideration. Un-notable positions and accomplishments might have been a reason not to give his opinions such consideration.

• You are still supposed to consider the consensus, even though the consensus is to be "on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The consensus of the votes was that notability evidence had been brought forward. The arguments against were lawyering suggestions that awards of titles could have been faked, or unreferenced assertions that the title wasn't important. You were not supposed to just ignore the assessments of those who voted and rely upon your own assessment entirely. There was plenty of policy based argument for the voters to legitimately reach their conclusion, and the vote was 5 to 2, not counting you as a vote, since you are required to be neutral.

• I found a way to get google scholar to do the tally. Leroux has 67 pubs, and 617 citations. His H-index is 9 and his I10-index is 8.

--Africangenesis (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently Marcel Leroux is far above average. The citation threshold for being in the top 1% of scientists is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. It seems what people thought they knew about what is "average" is wrong. [25]--Africangenesis (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently it isn't enough to show you that you were wrong on every point you cited to decide to delete when closing. You are going to insist on wikilawyering delays to the end. Your responsibility is to do what is right for wikipedia whether I KYA or not. I've given wikipedia enough information to make the correct decision according to its standards. It is wikipedia's job to replace admins that don't meet the standard.--Africangenesis (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC) "New Sources"? What was your old source for this statement:

• "Merely being a cited scientist isn't sufficient to meet WP:N - the point is, even if you're a moderately well cited scientist, those citations are mostly what N refers to as passing mentions; you don't learn anything about the person from them, so you can't use them to write an article."

From WP:Academic:

• "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."

I have supplied what you need above. What more do you need? Do you have contrary evidence? You deleted on your own. You can restore on your own. Is the recommendation to take it up first with the closing admin really supposed to be a waste of time, like you are implying? The new citation on citations are relevant to application of the standards, not to the article. We don't need a discussion on WP:Academic. It already adopts this kind of analysis. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• If this helps any, I checked the name through my highbeam account. [26] A rather long article that mentions Leroux quite often through it, they talking about his views and his book. So that counts as one significant coverage in a reliable source. Fox News [27] quotes two sentences of his, but that's it. He seems notable enough to be quoted all over the place though. Dream Focus 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Foxnews quotes two sentence and you think that somehow satisfies WP:GNG or is even usable as a source? If you had read the AfD you would have also seen that the Bulletin was already discussed at the AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Being in the top 1% of his field in citations should be enough to avoid the "average professor" dismissal.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I can't figure out what it means by "scientists" - Someone in the top 1% of professors cite wise would probably be quite notable for that, someone in the top 1% of the mish-mash of professors, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates that get their names onto papers might well not be. It may be there, or not - but either way, that's a subjective judgement I shouldn't be making as closing admin. WilyD 11:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That only makes his achievement all the more remarkable, since he was the primary author in every single publication counted in his 617 citations. There are other publications where he is just a co-author. What you describe could only inflate the numbers of others if you are comparing to them. He is already in the top 1%. --Africangenesis (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What? No - having more citations than undergraduates or graduate students doesn't make a professor look more impressive; they're supposed to be doing that. WilyD 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • BTW, it is far less subjective than the judgement you did make as closing admin, which is kinda the point.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there something subjective about Leroux being director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment vis'a'vis criterion 5 of WP:Academic?--Africangenesis (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I know nothing about the lab or whether being the director of it may meet WP:ACADEMIC - it wasn't discussed in any depth during the AfD, nor it is obvious without doing substantive research on the subject - I could plausibly believe either that it's sufficient, or that it's not. WilyD 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It wasn't discussed because it wasn't disputed. But you know it now. And those who put the article up for deletion for notability reasons, should have known researched the notability standards and considered whether they were applicable before trying to get the article deleted. --Africangenesis (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not disputed that it's true, so far as I can see. Whether it's sufficient to meet criterion 5 of ACADEMIC isn't discussed, and it's not clear to me whether it's true or not. I certainly see no particular reason to believe either that it is, or it isn't. If you continue to insist on attacking the other people involved it'll only convince me that a) you're resorting to ad hominem arguments because there aren't any legitimate ones, and b) that you're unco-operative editor who isn't worth discussing things with. If you're keen to see the article restored, fix it so it clearly meets WP:N (or whatever), then run it by DRV. If you're not, then what are you doing here? WilyD 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
            • WilyD, independent delete admin. writes:"If you continue to insist on attacking the other people involved it'll only convince me that a) you're resorting to ad hominem arguments because there aren't any legitimate ones, and b) that you're unco-operative editor who isn't worth discussing things with." Uncooperative? This editor just gave you tons of references and he is rewarded with threats! Priceless.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WilyD, you acknowledge the correctness of my ad hominem characterizations, by admitting that a restored updated article would just be put up for AfD again. Sorry, it is possible to have both legitimate arguments and ad hominem arguments, and you can't claim not to have seen the legitimate ones. --Africangenesis (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You were told where to go. Go there. This isn't AfD2, the AfD is closed. You're trying to argue that he should re-open a closed AfD with arguments that you didn't even mention at the time; that's just not going to be considered. He can't consider it because it would be pretty close to a supervote after the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you are as unfamiliar with deletion review as you were with WP:Academic. I was referred here. Read up.--Africangenesis (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For you IRWolfie: "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?." and two of things listed #1 and #3 seem pertinent. [28]

1) if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly,

2) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article,

Maybe that is a supervote. If he can't reverse his closing, the instructions wouldn't refer one here first. If he can reverse on #1, why not on #3? Perhaps he can just do it, and see if he can get away with it. What would you do if he did, and what would your justification be? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you found something really unambiguous - a biography, say, or that he'd won an obviously significant prize (IDK, Nobel, say), then I could reasonably overturn the old discussion. Since you've found a lot of ambiguous material, it's not appropriate for me to just overturn. Hence my "Well, maybe - fix it up and have a discussion." Such a discussion might plausibly go either way. WilyD 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've won the nobel prize. What Marcel Leroux has done is far more notable than that.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, Africangenesis is removing your user sandbox template: [29]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. I removed IRWolfie's sandbox template. It did not seem proper ettiquette for him to be reverting in someone elses User: hierarchy. If that template has some authority as an administrator function, let a disinterested administrator do it. If this is such an administrator concern, why isn't there a bot checking and adding templates in the user hierarchies? IRWolfie seems to think other people will confuse this with a real article despite the User: and that he has WP:OWN on the issue. BTW, IRWolfie, if you now realize the Marcel Leroux meets the notability requirements (I count 3, when any 1 is supposed to be sufficient) please let WilyD know. --Africangenesis (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW, WMC can WP:BATTLE and commit vandalism too! I'm impressed. BTW, Lucy thanked me for my additions. Of course the whole AfD was vandalism of a sort. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article was copied and pasted before the AfD was closed. Does it not violate the CC by SA because it's not attributed to the original authors. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably there needs to be a histmerge then. Unless the copy-paster did all the authoring. WilyD 06:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WilyD, I hope you and others are watching and learning.  :-) There is more than one kind of vandalism. You may think that it is Marcel Leroux and its sandbox copy that is being vandalized, but it is really a long term effort against List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming The article is setup so that those whose views are to be listed or catalogued must be "notable", but it is not enough that they are notable, they must have an article because red-links aren't allowed. This means that those wanting to contribute to the article in good faith, have the additional burden of having to create a bio article as well, even if they may have no interest in doing so. It is pretty clear that Marcel Leroux is notable, the argument seems to be that the article should be improved some, (to save face or something) so lets do the experiment of avoiding the redlink by just not wikilinking his name, and seeing what happens.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to link it at all, but then I had the idea of blue linking to the fr.wikipedia article.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Arg - let's see: Don't use vandalism to mean everything you disagree with, it has a specific meaning and using it as a general slur isn't okay.

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" sounds like a bad idea in general. Someone who disagreed with point one, because they think nitrous oxides are more important than methane and CO2 would be done a real disservice by lumping them in with people who simply deny global warming is the result of human activities, plausibly losing out on jobs, or whatever else, if it gets noticed. Consider that a large fraction of the names there are emeritus (science progresses funeral by funeral, after all) - realistically, someone who was a bit slow to come around (but now that they don't disagree with the general is a huge concern, etc. WilyD 06:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of having quotes, and quotes can have dates, I think you will agree that they will have a more difficult time changing the past than changing their minds. I don't know why the quotes went away, perhaps they were too persuasive. Scientists can change their mind after making statements and producing results in the peer review literature as well. More likely than someone who was a bit slow is someone who was a bit fast, and is now finding that the evidence wasn't there and the correlated error in the models are several times the magnitude of the energy imbalance. There is no model independent evidence that the net feedback to CO2 forcing is positive rather than negative in the current climate. --Africangenesis (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Marcel Leroux

Good afternoon. An editor asked me off-wiki to review your closure of the Marcel Leroux. I declined to do so. I consider off-wiki decisions (including those made on IRC) to be bad policy and anti-wiki. I did, however, decide to honor the editor's request for privacy and opened a DRV discussion in his/her name. I have also taken the liberty of posting my own review of the debate. Apologies for not notifying you in advance of the question but I couldn't figure out how to do that and protect the privacy of the original requestor. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed the debate already occurring above. I'm sorry that you have already been sucked into the mutual incivility and ad-hominems by the partisans in this debate. I hope that we as a community can show a bit more restraint and professionalism on the DRV page. And, by the way, thank you for taking on the task of closing that debate. Whether or not I agree with your conclusion, I know how hard it is to slog through an ugly, disorganized discussion and to attempt to distill consensus from it. You are a credit to The Mop. Rossami (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Rossami, I looked at your deletion review statement, it is merely one opinion or does it overturn the deletion? The restoration hasn't happened yet. I think you made good sense of the discussion mess, and the foreign language academic did present difficulties. Since then I think we have greatly increased the case that he meets criteria 1, 2, 5, 7 that raise he will above the average professor status. His citation count puts him in the top 1% of the two closest fields I could find. (WilyD notes that includes perhaps low publishing non-professors as well). He is the head of a major climate lab with a funny french name. He has the award you mentioned. And I have found and posted to the sandbox several articles in the two major French newspapers. I can't really evaluate their quality, but as far as I can tell only one is just a commentary. It probably would have helped to have assistance from Leroux's fellow countrymen. Do I need to present the arguments on the review you have opened? thanx.--Africangenesis (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Africangenesis. Rossami (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Bias against future recreation" is an interesting point. It's too late for this now but that is certainly a factor that I will think more about before I let myself get sucked into another DRV. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good summation

Your close here shows the wisdom of Solomon. Thank you for a thoughtful explanation and way forward in what has been a very contentious issue, and not just a one-word close. It is quite helpful. --Jayron32 13:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. It seems the advice that I've been reluctant to close as no consensus was good advice that I was wise to heed. WilyD 13:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Leroux deletion review

WilyD, many of the votes on the deletion review, appear mainly to be supportive of your good faith in closing the AfD. I'm sure you agree that is far from the only criteria they should consider, that evidence accrued and better organized since your closure, by the DRV standards, should be considered independently and can be sufficient to overturn despite any conclusion of good faith on your part. I solicit your support to call for a fair hearing of the issue, regardless of concern for your decision. I think I've made a fair summary of the evidence in my vote at the AfD. Your voice as the closing admin could carry considerable weight. Regards.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• The more I look into it, the more I don't think I can make the case that he's particularly significant. And the more you lambast me and everyone else around, the less inclined I am to be exceptionally helpful. I've given the DRV whatever information I can, but I'm not going to try and influence the outcome one way or the other. WilyD 08:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, I start out making it easy for people to be intellectually honest, and as time goes on I make it clearer where their duty lies and simultaneously harder emotionally for them to do so. Why make it easy when they have made you go to the trouble of rubbing it in their faces and they still will claim they don't see it. Many people simply refuse to concede that they were wrong, but meanwhile everyone has learned something about their character. At least you are honest when it comes to admitting it. You should not have to make it easy for someone to be intellectually honest, they should be intellectually honest as a matter of course. When it is like pulling teeth, something is wrong. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)--

DYK for Worker policing

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)

When closing this did you take into account the blatant sockpuppetry reported here? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Akhelios

You've said that it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. The reason does not have its own tag, but, I have on [|here], on number 5, that it actually is. If you could either verify this for me, or explain why Akhelios isn't covered by this article, that'd be awesome. Marigu goke (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Superfeedr deleted

Hi, it seems Superfeedr's been deleted without giving you very long to reply to Fireflo's response to your comment. Did you have any response? If so, I wonder if there's some way to re-open the discussion? I don't have anything more to add myself however. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wise spam

Hello. I'm interested to hear how 3x COI articles (Wise Care 365, Wise Disk Cleaner and Wise Data Recovery) plus linkspam to these in other articles by an SPA who is obviously promoting his product does not constitute spam. Perhaps you didn't spot that the "references" cited are solicited and paid for? If WP keeps these articles, we'd be endorsing scareware products that draw unwary consumers in with a free version that finds countless "errors" that can only be repaired by buying the product. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Socrates2008's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Urocitellus

Hello

I assumed that the IP was the only editor 'cuz the other edits are done by Bot's but I see i was wrong i should had checkup up on more entrys... --Fox2k11 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Avanesyan

Please read why I said the page shouldn't be deleted and put it up as soon as possible. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper's RFA

The "tagging something as a hoax that was almost certainly true" link you provided at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper goes simply to Special:Undelete, which doesn't have any links to any pages at all. Could you please supply a diff to the edit in question? Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Avanesyan 2

I have completed it now. Will you please restore the article? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

I was just writing up a post to ANI on him but you beat me to it with your block. He has made some pretty nasty comments in the last couple weeks against different users. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of the articles were in my watchlist, and he already had a handful of blocks for personal attacks. No problem. WilyD 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Guanzhuang

thanks! Azylber (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Jackson (clergyman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Tedeschi

Hi! I noticed that you deleted the Mark Tedeschi. According to my notes, that article should have been fairly sound, in spite of its origins, so I was surprised to see it deleted by CSD. Given that the user wasn't blocked at the time the article was created, does G5 apply? I'm not too worried either way, although the subject is quite notable, so at some point in the future we may need to recreate the article. - Bilby (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the article looked like when it was deleted, but I can't imagine it would be at any risk at AfD - I went through most of the articles by Morning277 when we were running the SPI, and that one was pretty well referenced (I sent some of his articles to AfD, but they tended to be a lot less notable). At any rate, I'm not really worried about it, as perhaps this is the only way of handling his edits, but I'll tag it as a topic worth writing on in the future. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Article was created prior to the ban. I would request that it be restored and then placed at AfD for consensus on notability. I will refrain from voting. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that it wasn't strictly a G5 and people have complained, I've restored it. Take it to AfD if you like. WilyD 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the restore.--UsedEdgesII (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Women in Chad, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Mjs1991 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Women in Chad

Sorry for that. Didn't realise you were an admin.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jenn Bostic

Thanks for deleting the redirects. Could you also take a look at User:Jenn Bostic and User talk:Jenn Bostic. It looks like the article was originally moved there before it found its way to the mainspace. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright WilyD 11:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Arman Ghazaryan

Hi. Just FYI: you dePRODded this, saying "as much as I hate WP:FOOTBALL, a soccer player in his nation's top league is a plausible assertion of significance", but I have replaced the PROD (resetting the clock) because it was a BLP-prod, and there are still no sources. Once upon a time I might have set out to look for sources, but I have become fed up with the flood of one-liners that just say something like "Ozymandias Grk is a Fooian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for F K Grblfxp", and I hope that if their authors find them deleted they may learn that they can't expect others to take the time to check (a) is F K Grblfxp in a fully professional league (b) is Ozymandias Grk in the first team (c) has he actually played for the first team (d) is there a reliable source for that? Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anjani Kushwaha

I can assure that this is the name of a person and not a village. (apparently name of the creator) The infobox has been copied from Muzaffarpur --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels

You said that I must wait for several months, but WP:articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, WP:articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, and WP:articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups agreed to delete them all. I worry that the titled subject might return to mainspace without substantial improvement. Therefore, if move protection is needed, as well as User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It returned to mainspace but became a redirect. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have authority to delete prior revisions of the page, so I have no other choices. --George Ho (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been weeks, so I wonder if the redirect page violates WP:RFD#KEEP (or WP:R#KEEP). I can't find any useful history of former article, even when content is already merged in AT&T U-verse. However, why would one person's favoring the redirect enough reason to keep the page is beyond me. There are no alternatives to consider making improvements to overcome AFD and MFD any longer. Holding off RFD nomination until January or February is the best way for me, but... I'm out of words about this. --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll rephrase: does this redirect page follow WP:RFD#KEEP? --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Point 4 is out of question; there are no articles that link to this redirect. Using non-mainspace links to validate that point is... something that I should not consider as rationale. As for #1 and #5, however, I've thought the same thing. --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, if not for userfication, that way, people would have already known that this page no longer existed. --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll rephrase about point 4: people outside Wikipedia would have realized the red-colored deletion log banner by simply clicking it. (For example, Template:spoiler still has deletion log banner at the "Create the page" thing.) Instead, the page was resurrected by userfication and then transformed into a redirect. --George Ho (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bgwhite#Oppose

Please take a look at my response. I haven't a clue where you get I'm wrong 1/2 the time. Bgwhite (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are using wrong numbers. My "13 delete votes" of articles that were ultimately kept includes the articles I submitted for AfD, but were kept. I submitted over 110 articles during that period. 9 of my "13 delete votes" includes articles I submitted via AfD that were kept. Please correct your numbers. Bgwhite (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

S.J. Ramprashan

Dear Wily D,

The article titled S.J. Ramprashan was deleted on November 6th 2012, entirely by mistake. This article was approved and was up on Wikipedia as the biography of a notable Tamil Radio broadcaster who has worked in Sri Lanka and is now working in Canada. I realized that I had erroneously deleted the article and I rewrote the same article on November 8th 2012, not knowing how to restore the original article that I had not intentionally deleted. One of the claims for deletion by Malik was that 2 articles exist under the same name. That is the article that I had created on November 8th 2012 after realizing that I had accidently deleted my original article on Nov/6th/2012. I see that you had restored the article with 6 revisions and then you had put the original article in my usertalk area. How can I restore this as a wikipedia article just like it was 2 weeks ago? I kindly ask that you restore the original article as he is a prominent member of the Tamil community and has contributed significantly to Tamil broadcasting and is a mainstream media Tamil community representative. Hence I feel a biographical article about him would serve the community well. Please get back to me regarding this issue as soon as you can. Thank you very much.

Sharan.satku (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Caine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages A&E and GRB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

intellectual property

The text posted in wikipedia under "Angelo Renai" Was cut an pasted from IMDB and then edited with updated links of notoriety. I initially posted it on IMDB as tps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdpersing (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion

Hi

You declined the CSD on Ian H. Crocker. That's fine, and I half expected it. The reason I requested it is as follows:

• I responded to an edit request on the talk page of Bell, Florida
• Whilst I have no reason to believe the poster of the edit request's story, I investigated - the name was inserted with fake references and the article history shows it has been a playground for stuff like this.
• After reviewing the article history and the history of the redirect, I was convinced the info was a "prank"
• I believe in WP:DENY

It's utterly unimportant to me - since I removed the info I thought needed to be removed, and took the action I felt necessary. Just thought I'd leave you the note, since you are now the editor who "inserted" it Begoon ^talk 08:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Begoon's talk page.
Message added 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Begoon ^talk 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Replied to your reply - no need to answer if you see no need to answer Begoon ^talk 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Struck comment because I archived the discussion from my talk page - so nothing to see there now. Sorry if I reacted harshly - it was only a CSD on a redirect, after all. Happy days. Begoon ^talk 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Calvin Wooster

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirected United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/17

There are a lot of articles pointing to it that now have red links and no one knowing what's going on. FYI. CarolMooreDC 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

After created page looks like someone did correct them in article spaces but four relevant talk pages working on issue currently did need those redirects. FYI. CarolMooreDC 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is wrong and there are only 2-3 pages linking to it. Nevertheless, ive redirected to the more appropriate place.(Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

I CSD'd it earlier but it was [implausibly] recreaed. I guess we can redelete or leave it as this per the UNSC reslutions(Lihaas (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

Just checked this and can't see how redirecting it to a page where people will look at the WRONG resolution is right. Since this topic IS very much under discussion on several talk pages right now, why not wait a few weeks and THEN delete it? Or go to those talk pages and correct the links. CarolMooreDC 21:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting it to a non-sequiter is not encyclopaedia writing. I've brought it to RfD so the matter can be discussed, although the outcome is a foregone conclusion given we're writing an encyclopaedia here. If someone has mistakenly linked resolution 67/17 when they meant 67/19, fix that link. Don't try to fuck over the readership instead, that's not sensible. WilyD 21:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be more civil and Assume Good Faith. Now that I have changed most important links, I have opined about deleting it entirely at RfD. CarolMooreDC 00:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from giving generic warnings that are entirely unapplicable to the situation (especially, ironically, ones about civility). WilyD 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

On that subject, and asuming good faith ;)(Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)).

User:42120kev/Tdi Mole (series)

This was apparently listed for deletion as part of a discussion at WP:MfD and you closed the discussion as delete: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:42120kev back in September. It has not been deleted and still has the MFD tag on it. I don't have a horse in this race, but I was trying to clean up incorrect, outdated or unfinished tags and I notice this at Wikipedia:Database reports/Old deletion discussions. Just thought I would let you know. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It was just a mistake. It's been tagged for months and no one's complained, so I've deleted it. WilyD 05:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your block of Hello71

You blocked User:Hello71, who has been trolling, whether deliberate or not. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• So I did, though that was long enough ago I don't recall why. One seemingly pointless edit doesn't concern me, unless I'm missing something? WilyD 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• My notification should be sufficient, and I wish that you need not trouble yourself further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting on Yaqub

Hi, WilyD i have seen your reverting here the redirect has no useful incoming links as here and is also holding up a move therefore i believe it should be deleted. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is holding up a move that is of article Islamic view of Jacob the page was prior occupied by this article and therefore it need to be moved to its place again. see here --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok i will start a discussion on the talk page and have a consensus if there is no one negating the move then will you going to help me with the move?? -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cooper (author)

May I bother you to place a copy of Tom Cooper (author) at User:pdfpdf/Tom Cooper (author)? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there something in particular you want? The content is mostly all from http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/profile.aspx?ID=3441 - well, I've restored the rest, but the original article also had the description from there copy-pasted at the start, but I'd rather not restore that bit to Wikipedia, given that it would be a copyright infringement. WilyD 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

a) Thanks.

b) Is there something in particular you want? - No, not yet, thank you.

I wanted to see what had been there so I could determine how much work was required to create an acceptable article.

It seems the answer is probably: "quite a bit of work".

but I'd rather not restore that bit to Wikipedia - Fair enough. (Particularly given that I can easily look at the original.)

Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained: Plato's laptop

Yes, but what about Aristotle's box file? Was it quarto, A4, legal or foolscap? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing

Please consider re-opening this AFD and allowing another administrator to close it. You clearly have an opinion on the merits of the article, and as such, you need to vote in the process as an ordinary user, not cast a supervote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)

Hi Wily, it has been shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen that this Afd you recently closed had been heavily rigged by sockpuppets; see group 2 at the SPI for names. Please consider reviewing your closing result. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fried Pork in Scoop

I tagged Fried Pork in Scoop as R3, I hope you don't mind. There are only three Google results; two have site errors and don't work and the other suggests we should also be tucking into Toast Chicken within Details. I think it's Chinglish—funny, but ultimately not worth keeping. --Noiratsi (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone looked for it once, and was motivated enough by not finding it they felt compelled to make an article, my expectation is that it's not likely they'll be the last person to do so. Redirects are actually nicer to the servers than deleting them, so it's not typically worth deleting them when readers are better served by them existing (if only occasionally), and the server is, too. WilyD 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I've put it back how it was. Thanks, and sorry for the fuss. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the student just happened to mention you in a survey about the assignment, I suppose just to recognize you for being helpful. S/he did not list any reason why.. I'm sure the behavior was along the lines of any suggested behavior to a new editor. :) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Boy Lizaso is a real person

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Y4McldzJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvu8NU5qlKw

http://blip.tv/diversity-news-tv/boy-lizaso-from-lizaso-haute-couture-presented-red-12-12-12-holiday-fashion-holiday-fashion-and-awards-show-honoring-l-a-s-most-fascinating-people-2012-6479334

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=470812835772

http://www.filipinovillage.com/show-image.asp?id=183

http://diversitynewsmagazine.com/2012/12/lizaso-haute-couture-presented-red-12-12-12-holiday-fashion-and-awards-show-honoring-l-a-s-most-fascinating-people-2012/lourdes-duque-baron-and-boy-lizaso/#.UN2GB299LSg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideVital (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you search online and find out who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideVital (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment

Hey, I just had to drop a quick note of thanks for that comment on my RfA... "Insufficient love for baby Jesus is ridiculous" made my day! I needed that smile. —Darkwind (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment

While i'm certainly not going to challenge your decision or anything, I just wanted to comment that in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robb Alvey (2nd nomination) discussion, considering all the Delete votes were made by SPAs who had never edited before trying to get the article deleted (and the IPs could presumably also be the new accounts, I didn't bother to check) and whose only argument was "non-notable" with no explanation whatsoever besides the amount of sources that kept getting pulled up, it probably should have been a Keep decision. Silverseren^C 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Especially since they'll probably try to use the no consensus decision as an excuse to try and get it deleted again in the future. Silverseren^C 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'll see about adding in the rest of the sources I found and discussed in the AfD to shore up the article some more. Silverseren^C 22:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on AFD closure

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, may I ask why you did not consider the WP:NOT#NEWS argument (which is policy compared to WP:N), or the transwiki option that was given? --MASEM (t) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello WilyD: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco 7600

I don't understand your justification for resolving this as a redirect to Cisco Systems. There does not appear to be consensus for this. In absence of consensus, the article should not be deleted. -—Kvng 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:N is a strong argument. Combined with the point that a merger would be unsuitable (it'd created crazy undue emphasis within the article), redirecting is really the only outcome left. WilyD 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you say but I believe your role is to decide whether there's consensus to delete not decide whether the article should be deleted. Only the nominator makes a strong WP:N argument. -—Kvng 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Multi Chevrolet

I think Multi Chevrolet is a dealership in New Jersey based upon a WP:SET and should not be a redirect. Mkdw^talk 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 09:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kostasneymar

Hi WilyD. I think you close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kostasneymar may be premature, considering that my notification at Talk:P.A.O.K._F.C.#A_lot_of_stuff_in_userspace_nominated_for_deletion six hours earlier may have been the only notification of editors who may have been interested in the content. Although probably unlikely, some of the content may have assisted editors in improving the article P.A.O.K._F.C.. Unless someone was quite sure the matereial was unusable (the nomination reads as slightly tentative), I think a relist, just in case, would be the right thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a very good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Glider (aircraft)

Hi Wily, just letting you know that when you moved Glider (aircraft), you didn't close the move request, so it was still showing up on WP:RM. I went ahead and closed it. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Jackson (clergyman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Ferguson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request deleted article

Hi, WilyD. You recently deleted the articl Without A Face (band). I think I can help the original author whip the article into shape, if you could send me the deleted article. Thanks. Natt the Hatt (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can definitely make that better. Natt the Hatt (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Check

• Hello, I think you're an exprienced editor, would you plz check Arsames (band), seemes like a non noable article to me. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Smile

I like your closes. Eg. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Smile, Wikipedian, smile!

Christine Kerr deletion nomination

Frankly, I don't really care one way or the other of the outcome, but I don't understand what is sensible about a redirect to an article where the title of the redirect (in this case, the name Christine Kerr) is never even remotely referred to. You may have your reasons, and maybe good ones too; or you may have not understood the rationale, but 'not a sensible reason' makes me sound like a roaring idiot for making the nomination. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent CSD attempt: Arthur Mooring

I recently nominated Arthur Mooring for WP:CSD#A7 (my first deletion nom, so please forgive any mistakes), and from your declining edit summary, apparently I’d missed any claims of notability. I didn’t see anything in the article showing that he’s notable, and I can’t seem to find any sources that say much beyond that he was alive. Should I try another nomination, or am I wrong in the first place? —Frungi (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn’t sure whether you’d prefer me to respond on my page or yours; maybe consider a banner or something at the top of your Talk? Anyway, thank you for explaining. Seems I misunderstood the criterion. I PRODed the article, and that appears to have spurred some source gathering, which (even though I’d never heard of the man or anything about him) makes me happy. I thought about removing the notice since it now has sources, but I didn’t want to risk interrupting the apparent beneficial effect. —Frungi (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Subway in popular culture

I noticed that you used a headcount argument in a close here (something specifically not a part of Wikipedia:Consensus). Can you explain to me how you could determine based on quality of argument that the consensus was to keep an unsourced trivia list?—Kww(talk) 01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always tried to weigh arguments according to whether a plain reading of policy supports them or not. Can you explain to me exactly how you believe this article is based on independent, third-party sources, as WP:V has always required? Note that today, WP:V contains "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ". Random trips through the history tend to come up with the sentence "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for the last five years.

Presented with this same set of arguments I would have closed as delete or merge. None of the keeps are based on policy, my delete is based on a plain reading of policy, and the merge votes shouldn't be dismissed: there are only three sourced items in the entire article, so merging them would not be particularly onerous.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When did WP:V become "best practice" as opposed to policy? I know I'm pissing in the wind on this one, but please don't describe my argument as "bizarre".—Kww(talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly verify that the TMNT lived in the subway from primary sources. Only coverage in independent sources would indicate that that fact is actually a meaningful component of an overview of the subway in popular culture. If the material in an article is primarily attributable to primary sources, it fails to meet WP:V. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" isn't an idealism that should be glossed over. It's fundamental policy.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that you confuse the purpose of WP:N and WP:V. WP:N operates in relation to topics, and WP:V works in relation to content. I would be a fool to claim that no decent article could ever be written about the impact of the New York City in popular culture: as a topic, it passes WP:N. As content, though, this article cannot be sourced to independent sources, and WP:V indicates that the content of an article must be based on independent sources. A delete doesn't say "never write an article on this topic again" it says "the contents of this article are unsalvageable", which I think is a fair assessment of a list of random movie and TV scenes. A "merge", preserving the three properly sourced facts and placing them in the parent article, would be a reasonable compromise. You base your argument against the merge vote based on the concept that the majority of the article would get copied over, and that's precisely what shouldn't happen. I'll give up on this one, though: a DRV would be overwhelmed by people that don't have a problem basing articles on primary sources, despite policy to the contrary.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good closure. Its always important to follow the consensus of those participating in the AFD, instead of ignoring that and just casting a supervote to delete something you don't like. Dream Focus 15:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

my request to delete Afreaka !

Hi, I asked to have the Afreaka ! article speedily deleted because its name is wrong (has a space that should not be there) and because the article Demon Fuzz, which is proposed for deletion, covers the topic better. I think the Demon Fuzz article will survive AfD. Was I supposed to wait for the AfD discussion to time out before asking? You wrote

Declined There's no way duplication should result in deletion here. If the consensus is to keep the content in the parent article, this should be a redirect. Or, the content might be moved from the parent article to here. EIther way. But deletion? No

I highlighted "here" because it sounds like you didn't notice (or I didn't convince you) that the article is under a wrong name. I think I was created that way because the editor who made it is French, and in France they use spaces that way. If there's to be a separate article about the album, it should not be written with the space because the band is not French and didn't name the album that way.

I asked for the redirects Afreaka! (the proper name) and Afreaka pointing to Demon Fuzz but that was denied too:

This is a matter for the AFD, not for a redirect to be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=536875761&oldid=536875144

I asked about that at User_talk:Mdann52#your_comment_about_my_redirect_request 24.24.214.15 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If the band article is going to be kept (which looks likely), the properly spelled redirects should definitely be kept. Redirects with plausible typos are usually kept at WP:RFD, redirects with implausible typos are usually not kept at RFD. Someone who searches for, or links to, Afreaka! should definitely be sent to Demon Fuzz, not just told we don't have anything on the subject. I'm not sure how plausible Afreaka ! is ... without being certain of the origin of the typo, I'm reluctant to delete it (e.g., if the album cover has an unusually large space there, that might create that impression, it makes sense to keep it.) WilyD 06:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering! The editor who created the Afreaka ! and Demon Fuzz articles is using a French-sounding handle and the English Afreaka ! was translated from an article with the same name on the French Wikipedia that has since been deleted (I wasn't involved). The French set off punctuation marks with "extra" spaces that way; you can see spaces before the colons in the body here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afreaka_!&oldid=535991708

Since writing to you, I learned that there's such a process as moving an article. I've asked for that and gave some evidence at Talk:Afreaka_! showing that the space shouldn't be in the name.

You were right, Demon Fuzz did survive AfD. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Burkenburg

You deleted this user page (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burkenburg). There's now a long page there again. Could you check if the page currently is about the same thing and whether WP:CSD#G4 applies or whether a new discussion would be needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand conspiracy theories

The article Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand conspiracy theories has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kleinzach 11:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KTC (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

WilyD, I wanted to thank you for your support during my RfA, and let you know that I will work to earn your confidence in my future editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Closure of discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ferry Lane Estate Wildlife/sandbox

I'm wondering why you closed the discussion, as there had only been one !vote. Consensus had clearly not been established, and a relist would have been more appropriate. Thanks. —Rutebega (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting ahold of a deleted article

Since you were the admin who decided against consensus to delete an article, David G. McAfee, could you let me have access to it so I might rewrite it so that it might pass YOUR standards in the future? Thanks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox (2nd nomination)

You missed the second page that was discussed in the XfD, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Suzanne_M._Olsson. — raekyT 05:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• So I did. WilyD 08:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why was the Wikiproject draft deleted? The point of the Wikiproject is to work on abandoned userspace drafts. WP:NOTWEBHOST is an irrelevant argument for an article being worked on by a Wikiproject, especially when it can (and should have been) NOINDEXED. Furthermore, why was no notification given on the Wikiproject talk page? This all seem incredibly rude, though I guess it's rude on Dougweller's part. He said to me a while back that it should go to MfD, but I disagreed with him for obvious reasons, but didn't feel like arguing because I was busy at the time. Here's why I say obvious reasons:

Heaven on earth - India Today

Tomb Raider: Jesus buried in Srinagar? - The Times of India

US-Forscherin hält Schrein in Kaschmir für Jesus' Grab - News AT

Holy row in Kashmir over 'Jesus tomb' - Asia Times

Researcher hopes to find Christ's remains - New Straits Times

Example enough, do you think? That took me less than a minute on Google News. Here's a link. Silverseren^C 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on it right now, I might be able to take a stab this weekend. But I think relisting it would be fine, so long as these sources and a link to GNews for the rest were added. Silverseren^C 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ponniyin Selvan history merge

Hi. You histmerged WP:Article Incubator/Ponniyin selvan (2012 film) into Ponniyin Selvan after WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ponniyin selvan (2012 film). The interleaved revisions have nonsense diffs (e.g., 1, 2) and confuse legitimate changes (3). Following regular WP:Merging with history merging is discouraged by WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing. SmokeyJoe suggested WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page at the MfD. Would you agree with undoing the history merge? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Would you clarify what you don't like? Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that I understand your point better now. The required edit summary puts a note in the history – attribution may not be available right there, but it should be only a few clicks away. A major limitation of using page history only is when content is used on multiple pages, such as copying, splitting, and partial mergers. Revisions exist in one page only, barring a software change, and I imagine that cloned revisions would bloat and confuse page histories. You're welcome to share your concerns at WT:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

The IRC Elite is now blaming and shaming you for good trolling ;c 78.8.98.75 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Tixati

I'm quite shocked at the manner in which you deleted the Tixati page. Please be so kind to reinstate the page, or at least reply to the comments on User talk:Jec. Jec (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see further comments at User talk:Jec, where I ask you to reinstate the page so I can add the references you requested. In the future, please be so kind as to request references rather than deleting pages without discussion. Jec (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the main namespace, it should have sufficient citations now. There's one remaining case of original research, which I've marked with a tag. Should you have any further disagreements with this article, please speak to me rather than behaving like a bully. Jec (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, WilyD. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Rutebega's talk page.
Message added 15:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Rutebega (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

YMCA Youth Parliament articles

I see that you made several edits to the YMCA Youth Parliament article. If you have a chance and would like to weigh in on a discussion about the page, please see: Talk:YMCA Youth Parliament#YMCA Youth Parliament articles.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

But I fixed your link at Legoktm's RfA. At your discretion, feel free to undo this change at any time. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 12:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Several months after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) was closed, the user page was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination) by JohnCD (talk · contribs) on behalf of 50.113.65.228 (talk · contribs). The discussion was closed as speedy keep because 50.113.65.228 is a single-purpose account, so the later discussion should not override the previous one. At User talk:Cunard/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination), you wrote on 24 September 2012:

I'm not ignoring this question. But it's not straightforward to consider (partly because it's a quite long discussion), and I'm not terribly fond of the "compromise by fiat" closes of redirect or merge where only a small minority argued for that, with a lot of straight keeps and straight deletes (which I think this closely parallels). But I'm considering it. If you're unhappy that I'm slow (which I'm likely to be), feel free to try DRV, but I doubt it's likely to be all that helpful.

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 wrote in May 2011: "The general consensus here is that the page fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG." In your close in September 2012, you wrote that "large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page" and I asked you to consider removing the problematic chunks on the basis of your finding that "large chunks of content are problematic".

Two different closers have found that the user page has problematic content that violates WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG. In August 2011, Orangemike (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2:

Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Community consensus has repeatedly found that the problematic content violates policy so that content should not be allowed to remain.

In August 2011, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag was closed as "Consensus is that the offending portion of the page to be deleted (and obviously not re-added)" even though none of the participants bolded "delete the offending material". This close was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 25#User:TreasuryTag. Removing portions of pages was upheld at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of userpages? (July 2012).

Please consider removing the user page's problematic content per your assessment of the consensus that "large chunks of content are problematic". Because of the unpleasant acrimony surrounding the previous MfD, I will respect your decision however you decide and will not renominate this at MfD or DRV if you decline to remove the problematic content. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sound Devices

Hi, I'm looking to recreate Sound Devices which it appears you previously deleted. They are a company in the professional audio sector. Their products are very popular, have won awards, and have been used to record the sound for many major films and TV shows. I don't know what was wrong with the old article, but I believe that they are notable. I'm not sure what the correct process is - do you undelete the article, or should I start from scratch? SmilingFace (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2012 DH-84 Riama crash

G'day from Oz; the article was previously called "2012 De Havilland Dragon crash" or "2012 De Havilland Dragon disappearance" (both titles are on my Watchlist). Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Animal Instincts (book)

You just deleted the page "Animal Instincts (book)". It was not about the website as it is written in reasoning! It was about a book! Why did you do that? What was wrong with that article? I could edit it!

"it does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - that is a very vague reason. Are the books insignificant? Please undelete it. --Pager1989 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can't understand. I get that the main reason why you deleted my article is that the book (which article was about) was published in a digital form. And how can this be a clear reason? It is 21st century and many books, newspapers and magazines are published electronically. Does that mean that they don't deserve to be in Wikipedia? It is important what's inside the book and not the form it was published in. --Pager1989 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletes and moving The Digital Age

You appear to have missed the talk pages though. Only one edit so it's just for history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What?

Why would you delete a redirect only to recreate the exact same redirect almost immediately? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate the help on my merging issue. :) ProudGamecock (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined deletion

Regarding comments you made when you declined deletion of The Beverly Hillbillies (season 1), The Beverly Hillbillies (season 2),[30][31] and the other related season articles, the guideline we use for splitting an article, Wikipedia:Article size refers to readable prose size, not file size. Strictly speaking, according to the definition of readable prose, List of The Beverly Hillbillies episodes only contains 285 bytes of readable prose. Using a very loose definition of readable prose, there is less than 28KB of readable prose in the article. This is well within WP:SIZERULE's recommendation that length alone does not justification when the length of an article is <40KB. Since length alone is the only reason for splitting, there is no justification for a split, the justification for deletion based on the fact that the articles substantially duplicate List of The Beverly Hillbillies episodes still stands. I would therefore ask you to reconsider your rejection. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Catalyzer redirect

Re: Catalyzer - he reverted you. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Dogmaticeclectic's talk page.
Message added 04:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jayadevp13 17:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Block of Lfdder

Hi. What is actually the reason that you blocked Lfdder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks? I'm watching his talk page, and I don't see any recent activity which would nearly justify a two-week block, and your block log message does not offer much of a clue. In the talk page exchange, you quoted this diff of his, but it is two weeks old, and related with his quite old bad behavior at Language icons tfd. So, either I missed something obvious, or there are some deleted contribs of his, or...? (I'm not keen to jump on conclusions, but truly interested in an explanation). No such user (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Then, I must say that this block was pretty bad. As you probably know, WP:CIVILITY blocks of established contributors are pretty, um... controversial. As can be seen on very recent drahmaz at Wikipedia:AN#Indefinite block of Eric Corbett; this one IMO belongs to the same camp. Further, you blocked for two weeks for a "you talk like an idiot" comment directed at yourself, which arguably violates WP:INVOLVED. Of course you shouldn't tolerate any bullshit thrown at you, but as an administrator, you are supposed to get some extra skin. At the minimum, such a block should require a community review.
I'm not after another drama fest, but I rather strongly disagree with the validity of your block, so I propose that you either reduce it to time served, or at least to put it forward for review at WP:AN. No such user (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I opened a thread at WP:AN. No such user (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Many thanks for telling me as I wished that my page was going to be deleted before it was deleted, or was it that you didn't tell me? I was okay with the fact of deleting other pages, I understand what you wrote about it being more of a resume but if you could have told me this before my page went I would have changed it. Manu thanks for not informing me prior to the deletion as I wished. CharlieWhiteheadActor (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

since u deleted the page...

You deleted the page Atlanta Institute of Music, so basically you may wanna delete its redirect right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Institute_Of_Music just to inform you. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Skin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Americas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }</ref> and New Worlder<ref>{{OED|New Worlder}}</ref> are used; See [[#English usage|usage]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Words and stuff

Hi WilyD. Thanks for correcting me at Talk:Americas. So, you you know a bit about words and stuff? Would you like to look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles_again and tell me whether I am more or less right or wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the "racist mindset" nonsense

Please stop insinuating that those that disagree with you on a content dispute are motivated by a "racist mindset". Such baseless accusations could be considered a personal attack and lead to a WP:BLOCK. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". TDL (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If such usage is "racists" and "relevant to the content of the article" then provide a source to back it up. Otherwise, wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM so I don't think that your personal opinions are helpful to the discussion. WP:NPOV states that we must: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Obviously unsourced personal opinions do not fall under the realm of NPOV. Given that you've admitted that they are "probably not sourcable", it should be pretty clear that they can not be considered when deciding how to give WP:DUE weight to the content of the article. Please either source it or stop it. I'm sure that you wouldn't appreciate it if I suggested that "there is a racist/imperialist mindset behind using "American" exclusively to refer to US citizens". TDL (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Gotta check the diffs

IF you look at the diffs I reverted 3 x's the fourth edit you see is [[32]] which involved a completely different issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you were right

Sorry for bothering you about this again, but I've changed my mind - could you please restore the history of the redirect Au Pays des Têtes à Claques? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the request - I've dealt with the issue myself in a way I think makes more sense as it makes reverting the move easier if such is desired at some point in the future for any reason - although the sentiment still stands. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You Shouldn't Delete Betacoin

This cryptocurrency will change everything and it currently has thousand of active miners. This page must be undeleted. It is important for the people to know also about the alternatives. Also by following this practice you should equally remove the Bitcoin wiki reference...

The usual criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is explained here. Very basically, we only summarise information that's already published in reliable sources that're independent of the subject. We do this to ensure both that our information is verifiable, and that it can be written neutrally. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, WilyD 21:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 10:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacqueline de Vos

What do you mean by (revert bad decline) - article wasn't declined, I added CSD tag to it? --_nonsense ferret 22:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I note with thanks your clarifying comments on my talkpage. I'm afraid I fail to see how an article entitled "Jacqueline de Vos is very notable person" which clearly isn't a true statement, cannot be accepted as a hoax. You will see that the article has never been submitted for the AFC process, there is nothing to decline. So what do you suggest, leave it around for 6 months and handle it through G13? --_nonsense ferret 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for your comments. Seems all a bit silly to me, but I know you aren't responsible for the rules. I'm not going to waste your time and mine by looking through any more AFC submissions - they'll all be swept up in 6 months-ish. All the best --_nonsense ferret 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi WilyD! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Toronto! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join! Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiến sĩ

As you said, this redirect can be kept, so I contributed to Wikipedia by creating many redirects (Phó bảng, Thám hoa, Bảng nhãn, Trạng nguyên) which are same meaning. Thank you. Ok, I think User:In ictu oculi is correct, Vietnamese terms can appear in English Wikipedia everywhere. Next time, I will create more. Thank again to let me know. Alphama (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

History section

Thanks for restoring the History section at the Americas! I noticed that the article had a weird structure and shallow coverage historical facts, but I attributed that to it being low quality.

I would like to request you to take special care with newcomers involved in edit wars. While it was clear to you and me that the content didn't belong in the lede, the user didn't get the right impression of the why it was removed. The Welcome template was a nice touch, but proved itself insufficient; it was devolving quickly into a WP:BITEy situation.

The outcome of this ordeal could have easily been a burnt new editor, and us (you) not noticing that the user misplaced his addition because the proper place for it was missing. It would be awesome if you could go the extra mile in these cases and have the patience to directly explain what's going on at the user's own talk page, to engage him directly. Thx! Diego (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silas T. Cobb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year WilyD!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello WilyD: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Ryerson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wilkinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Weidenhammer Packaging Group

I believe its notability was also in question. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I will undelete. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Richey Deletion

You deleted my speedy deletion tag and cited the reason it should stay is that he is of significance. I strongly disagree. This is why:

1) The former alderman of a municipality of approx. 11,246 people is not significant beyond the local level. Deletions that demonstrate this case are the temporary deletion of Tom Cullerton from January 2012 until November 2012.

2) He has not been a candidate for "higher" office in over seven years. Candidates for office do not necessarily qualify as notable. Deletions that assert this include David Gill who ran for Congress multiple times,, Greene County State's Attorney Matt Goetten, and the temporary deletion of Tom Cullerton who ran for the same level office (State Senate) and was the PRESIDENT of a Village with approx. 22,000 people.

I may have been hasty on the deletion. I think that merging the information in this article with the article Deanna Demuzio would be most appropriate. I have also posted this on the Talk:Jeff Richey page.

Spiders (developer)

You deleted the Spiders (developer) page that I created while I was adding sources from IGN and GiantBomb. I understand that it, at the time of deletion, contained no sources that could not be verified as they all related to the companies personal web page, but I was in the process of updating the page when the deletion occurred. If the page with these sources would still not have been eligible to remain then I understand perfectly. Thanks, Doom1649 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom1649 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at Thryduulf's talk page.
Message added 11:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The intended hoax thing

Okay thank you, can you tell me which article that was? Again thanks Wgolf (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Great Johnsonissac (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

David Record page deletion links

This page was rejected twice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Record and it was deleted twice by User:Admrboltz on 13:36, 31 January 2014. It seems that it is reverted since a new page is created and when new discussion take place. Is there a way to check previous pages or dig into archives.

The image is copied from http://www.bramptonguardian.com/whatson-story/3071341-brampton-hip-hop-artist-tours-uk/ (bit.ly/1e8WqXD)

Ireneshih (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarath Dissanayake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sri Lankan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Pork Pie Jeffery article

Hi. It's late here, and I thought the year read 1995, not 1895. Thanks for catching my error. gsk 11:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have anything constructive to do

...than gathering links to old dirt about me to your sandbox, and starting a pointless DRV process to salvage a single IP-editor talk page comment? I'd expect this kind of counterproductive, time-wasting activities from trolls only, not from other administrators. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fathoms!

Bravo. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}}

Hi.

{{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}} is awaiting deletion in the holding cell. You should probably get used to using {{Infobox settlement}}.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"that's not a reason for deletion" - since when is needless duplication a reason?

Oh never mind, I'll just delete the category from its redirect re this, which was where I saw the problem.Skookum1 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

RFD: "No argument has been made to support deletion"

Can we try to get to the root of this. It is very annoying that you just copy-paste that. I know what you will say, that yes there are arguments for deletion but none of them support it, but that is just splitting hairs (in any case, RfD is redirects for discussion, so copy-pasting a standard bit of text is hardly a discussion, is it, so your words then tend to carry less weight). You know it is annoying not only to me but other regulars at RfD. If you are going to copy-paste your RfD comments, then you could say "I oppose the deletion" or actually just omit the text altogether. It may not seem so to you, but that choice of words implies that other good-faith editors (and I don't mean me, the latest one you did it on I hadn't even commented on) are somehow idiots or don't know what they are talking about. You may not mean it that way, but to at least one editor that is how it sounds and I suggest you rephrase it or stop using it. Si Trew (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I replied at mine. I do appreciate your hard work at WP, sincerely, I just think you should stop appearing to be giving others the brush-off. Si Trew (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied at mine. If you are watching my talk page, I needn't clutter yours by telling you so. Si Trew (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

recreated spam

A page you recently deleted has been recreated: User:Soccermomguide. INeverCry 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I think your decision to turn down the speedy deletion of Vpered (disambiguation) is a mistake. This article does not serve any purpose, apart from the main Vpered article there is only one other alternative meaning, which is now dealt with by a hatnote at this article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Vpered (disambiguation) has now been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Crash (song

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Crash (song, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Launchballer 10:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter P. Gudo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Achilles Statius (disambiguation)

Since there seems to be a disagreement amongst us regarding the interpretation of WP:CSD#G6 and the wording on {{Db-disambig}}, rather than starting an unnecessary edit war regarding my template placement on Achilles Statius (disambiguation), I thought I'd chat about it here. The wording WP:CSD#G6 and the wording on {{Db-disambig}} seem to contradict each other: the reason I state this is because the wording of WP:CSD#G6 doesn't mention WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all, but {{Db-disambig}} does. Also, WP:CSD#G6 says "lists at least two pages" and {{Db-disambig}} says "disambiguates fewer than two extant Wikipedia pages"...

The way I have interpreted the phrase disambiguates fewer than two extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); on {{Db-disambig}} is that a disambiguated page is an article that has a disambiguator in its name (or is not spelled like the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but could be confused for it), considering that in the case of a disambiguation page being at a title that ends with "(disambiguation)", that means that a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been determined and that its title is not disambiguated. In the case on Achilles Statius (disambiguation), it seems to meet the criterion listed on {{Db-disambig}} with the way that the template is currently worded (since only one title either has a disambiguator or only one title could be confused with the primary topic's spelling). In fact, with the fact that there is a primary topic, the disambiguation page does seem unnecessary since pointing to the other page is possible by putting a hatnote on the primary topic's page.

From what I have seen, this is the purpose of the {{Db-disambig}} tag (and without stating names, other administrators seem to agree with that, considering that other administrators have deleted articles I have tagged with {{Db-disambig}} in the past for pages in the same state as Achilles Statius (disambiguation).) If you don't believe so, I may have to open a WP:RFC regarding this, considering that the contradicting wording on WP:CSD#G6 and {{Db-disambig}} seems to be causing some interpretation issues that I can see myself. Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asash language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Pro 12 to Pro12

I see that you have moved Pro 12 to Pro12. Does that men you are going to move, for example, 2013–14 Pro 12 to 2013–14 Pro12 for consistency? Hamish59 (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Scott • talk 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WilyD, I can't bring myself to comment at ANI, and I don't know why Scott is incapable of just asking you first, but please remove your characterization of Gorobay's comment as a racist slur. It's really unfair. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign-language redirects

Hi WilyD, you've surely noticed the state of the backlog at RfD. Today I closed a couple of older discussions that I had participated in that had listed for a while and had unanimous consensus, which I hope most editors could agree is reasonable under the circumstances. I wanted to respectfully ask if you would be alright with me closing discussions for these foreign-language redirects in which consensus is clear and only you support keeping the redirect. You're certainly entitled to your position on these issues, but I think you can see consensus and what little documentation we have on it are against you.

When I say that I seem to be the only one closing RfDs these days, I say so with dismay, not pride. Under the circumstances, I'm trying to find creative approaches to maintaining the backlog. Again, this would only apply to discussions that have listed for seven days and for which you're the only editor advocating keeping. I did a quick scan of such discussions to make sure there weren't any with just one or two editors in opposition, and there seem to be at least four in opposition in all cases. Since I am among the opposing editors, I can't perform an uninvolved close. I hope you'll agree to this for the sake of the backlog, but if you don't, I will understand. Best regards, BDD (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of new discussion on WT:CSD

WilyD,

Since we had talked about it recently, I just wanted to inform you that I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Propose clarification: CSD G6 - when does it apply to disambiguation pages with only two listed articles? regarding clarification on when disambiguation pages with only two entries should be deleted per the CSD G6 criterion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

More reasons to keep

Hello WilyD, long time ago you have expressed your views on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators. Now I have improved the related articles and lists with systematic findings based on published reliable sources from history and political science. However, two of them are currently submitted to Afds (by a Chinese Wikipedian who in the past has personally attacked me for my contribution to politics-related articles in Chinese Wikipedia). Your comments are welcome and appreciated: (1) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictatorships (2)Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_dictators_in_Latin_America. Thanks.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 15:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration request

Please restore Portal:Paleozoic/Selected picture/1 - Portal:Paleozoic/Selected picture/15, I requested their deletion by accident thinking they were drafts in my userspace. Abyssal (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pitusa

Hi WilyD.

Thanks for allowing me to expand on the Pitusa article by sending it to my sandbox. As it is, I think it has sufficient information now to be a stand-alone article and also it has the links needed. So I wanted to let you know I am reinstating it as an article. God bless! Antonio Black-red-nails Martin ({{User talk:AntonioMartin|dime]]) 11:10, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subhrajit behera/sandbox listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subhrajit behera/sandbox. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subhrajit behera/sandbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

MetroAir Virtual

Dear Wily D

I wanted to ask for your reasons on why you decided to delete and remove my article about MetroAir virtual airlines. I created the page as a source of history and information to the users and participants of the virtual airline that I help run. In the article it was explained that we were a simulation 'virtual' airline but also one that prides itself on being realistic, innovative and professional. We strive to make the experience as real as possible. This is not the 1st wiki page we have had. We had one a couple of years ago but it was in a different format and was under utilised so we decided to close it. We however now felt it was time to log our history and also be a quick source of information about the airlines history and progression since it was created in 2005 and to improve 'realism' by showing like the real airlines do. We also wanted to have the 'Fleet' section (Just as real airlines do) to show our fleet listings and passenger configurations (so that pilots could simulate the cabin layout with the various Flight simulation programs)The page would be used by all the staff, pilots and visitors as an extra source of information. We made it clear in the article that we were 'Virtual' and for 'simulation purposes'

Would you be able to explain further? Or be able to re-consider your decision to remove the article seen as a lot of work was put in to its creation.

Thank you for your time in advance and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards Callan 91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callan91 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Steath (The Americans)

I created the page Steath (The Americans) (obvious misspelling) by a mistake, and since has been moved to Stealth (The Americans). Hence I requested the delete of the same. I see that you have removed the notice. Can you please elaborate? Coderzombie (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy; albums

Hi ... can you point me to the guideline that supports the notion that if an album is not notable (and has been deleted because it is not notable), but the band that recorded it is notable, that it is appropriate to re-add the album that is non-notable to a list in a disambig page?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

South Nyanza

Hi WilyD. Thank you for your efforts at fixing the page blanking on South Nyanza. It was eventually agreed here to re-direct the South Nyanza languages stub to South Cushitic languages. However, the same user has also been removing linguistic material from that South Cushitic page and especially from Taita Cushitic languages under the pretext that the wiki-text is "bullshit" (e.g. [33]). User:A.Tamar Chabadi, a professional linguist, has indicated that the material as a whole is actually both accurate and well-presented [34]. When you have the time, could you please have a look? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I just wanted to clarify the situation since you re-directed South Nyanza to South Nyanza languages, and we had just agreed to re-direct the latter stub to South Cushitic languages. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Federick Isaac Caterer

I made a rather embarrassing spelling mistake when I created this redirect. Could you please reconsider denying its deletion? Doug butler (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajniesh Duggall

Hi WilyD, Can you delete this redirect page and make a way for move page?, actually i want to move this Rajneesh Duggal article to Rajniesh Duggall per this source and this all [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Currently in this redirect page has copyvio and redirect edits, which is not needed, So please. Chander For You 11:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aziz Naik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Trot music

Hello, can you please go through this page? seems to be copyright violation. Thanks A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 09:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No Drum And Bass In The Jazz Room

I am considering taking the article to AfD; but before I do, I would like clarification on why you believe "deletion is obviously inappropriate".

I can understand why the speedy was declined - speedy requires the article fail to meet two criteria, and it only failed one of those. However, the article appears to fail WP:NALBUMS as well as WP:GNG - so deletion via prod or AfD would not appear to fall into the range of being "inappropriate". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Site

I requested deletion because there were multiple debate sites... --NE2 16:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Clay Westervelt

Dear Wily D

I think it was inappropriate to delete the page on award-winning American filmmaker Clay Westervelt. The biographical information contained within it was substantially re-written to comply with Wikipedia guidelines AFTER it was flagged as being too derivative. Now it has to be recreated once again. I think a more appropriate handling of the situation would have been for you to either make changes you deemed appropriate or ask the user who created it (me) to make these changes. As it is your actions are both arbitrary and capricious.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

the G8s

Why do you think it is “not an appropriate use of that tag”? � (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Temperence follow up

Every infomation I used for my article that you deleted: Temperance (Italian Melodic Metal Band) is verifiable online because it's there where I took everything. Please recondiser the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DARKARKEN (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't see your point. But, like always happens, like the lawmakers, some people got to decide for the others... By the way, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DARKARKEN (talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sub Assistant Community Medical Officer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = Routledge}}</ref> SACMO registered physician of Bangladesh Medical & Dental Council(BM&DC.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Muchacha Italiana Viene a Casarse (2014 telenovela)

Hey, why do retired destroy reporting?. part gives the information in this article was copied from "Yo no creo en los Hombre". In addition, the telenovela has not commenced and no recordings yet know that title is going to have so speculative.--Damián80 (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Samieh Rizk

Hello. As I understood, you support opening of a new AfD discussion for Dr. Samieh Rizk article? --BiH (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter McKelvie

You state it is an open and shut case of [[43]], and then redirect to one scandal? Leonig Mig (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Intention was not wanted to delete those pages Ratnam Concept School‎ and Sri Balaji Vidyalayam, but those are private schools which have no content and not really a famous organization, a street school with no references, even the tags you can see that it is not wiki's notability article tag, if that is the case then many school pages which are in a street as well find place. If you can guide in any other way, I welcome. If I were wrong? waiting for your reply.--Vin09 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted a speedy deletion of yours

Anurag Singh was recreated with an edit summary stating that it had been vandalised, and examination of the history proved this to be true, so I have restored the deleted history for attribution's sake. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sea of Red in La Bolduc

The readers won't understand when they see all those red links. They'll think we're disorganized linking to non existing articles. I remember myself as a reader the years before I started editing. At least with a tag they'll understand it's a work in progress. Why are you so hell bent against a maintenance tag. And I don't have to make a case about each of the many red links. Two or three in an article okay, but with that many red links it's time to say don't link until it has an article. SlightSmile 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is right or wrong here, it's quite a stretch to accuse me of not being here to write an encyclopaedia. Embarrassed what the readers might think - everything here is about the readers. If you're having a problem working with other users, maybe you should take a break. Whatever years experience one has, it never hurts to browse around Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. That reds tag had been there since February and suddenly after my audacity to revert you here you decide the tag doesn't belong. You don't own that article so please let other editors participate here. SlightSmile 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bausele

Hey, I saw your note re: "Declined - source is too much for A7 (though without others, I expect it would be deleted at AfD." I assume this makes reference to the Sydney Morning Herald article? I went through it too, but at the end there was a link to buy Bausele watches from the Sydney Morning Herald shop, which just kind of blew its independence for me. Asdklf; (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;

Hello, WilyD/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anton Goosen: Speedy Deletion

Greetings! I see that you deleted my tag for Speedy Deletion. That's fine, if you think that this is relevant, but my argument still stands. In reading this article, it was clearly written by the artist himself. He quotes a source without citation and all of his inline citations point back to his own article. The only external source is a Q&A article, which would be fine, but the rest of this article would, indeed, need a major overhaul. Most especially the list of awards; no sources at all. Would you suggest a PROD instead? Thanks for your help! Kobuu (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Gary Catona deletion

Hi WilyD, Can you please tell me why you deleted the page on Gary Catona for copyright infringement? I'm not the creator of the page, but I would like to know.

Gary Catona deletion

Hi WilyD, Can you please tell me why you deleted the page on Gary Catona for copyright infringement? I'm not the creator of the page, but I would like to know.

Konkani speedy deletion

Hi WilyD, this is regarding your declining the Speedy Deletion nomination of Goanese Konkani language. A search on Google Books for the title with quotes doesn't even return a single result. What makes you think that it is plausible that someone will search for this phrase? It's as meaningless as saying "Briteesh English language", for example. The Discoverer (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. My objection is twofold. Firstly, I'm not saying that "Goanese Konkani" is implausible, but that it's very unlikely that someone will search for the phrase "Goanese Konkani language". This is similar to how we don't have a page for Newfoundland English language even though we do have a page for Newfoundland English. Secondly, Goanese is the incorrect word for Goan, like Briteesh is an incorrect word for British. There is another technical problem with the title "Goanese Konkani language": The correct term, Goan Konkani refers not to a language, but to a group of dialects. I request you to review your decision and speedily delete the page. The Discoverer (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will open a discussion at RfD, but not right now, because I am going to be busy for a week or so and will be unable to follow the discussion. You are right, language nomenclature is a minefield, and this is particularly true in the case of the Konkani language, which in one talk page has rightly been called as the "Balkans of Wikipedia". Sometimes you can have a group of dialects that are still a subset of a language so they don't form a language on their own. See the image to get an idea of the situation. Goan Konkani can refer to either the group of dialects with the code 'gom' or to the subset of that group that is geographically in Goa. In the meantime, I will change the redirect to the more logical destination, Goan Konkani. The Discoverer (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Goanese Konkani language listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goanese Konkani language. Since you had some involvement with the Goanese Konkani language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Discoverer (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Locke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Words and Pictures. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Ten Tec

Hello WilyD! I see you have marked the article "Ten Tec" for speedy deletion. This article should not have been deleted because TenTec is an important company. TenTec is an Amateur Radio designer and manufacturer. They build radios like the MARS Series radios which are bought and used by the U.S. Military. I believe it should have not been deleted. Even the company itself claims "World's Communication Headquarters." Please Restore the page. Thanks, Doubledogdare610 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Doubledogdare610

Thanks for your reply WIlyD! At the moment, I do not know of any books published about the company. This company is in the area of where I live. I have no idea how I would get any reliable sources like you mentioned. Do you have any useful suggestions? Doubledogdare610 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Thanks for your cogent argument at the deletion review for Susan Lindauer. I agree that BLP1E is the most misused deletion argument, as most people in Wikipedia are know for just one event, or not even one event, they are just "celebrities" or "socialites", yet still notable by reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

You and the PR guy attacking me at the same time. Why don't you have the frickin facts first. I didn't PROD the article. When the editor has already stated they won't tolerate removal of the article's material, me doing a redirect isn't going to work. Thus, to force a redirect, you have to go to AfD. I've been getting attacks from Maldoro2 for a few days, now I have to get them from you. What, I need to hand out milk and cookies or you are going to yell admin abuse too. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you know, a sockpuppet has popped up. They are contesting the redirect and the book article is now back. Thanks alot for putting me down without having a clue on what has been going. Stay the hell away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis

An editor would like to make UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis into an article. In 2009, the fate of the page was disupted. You were the first to redirect it (and protect it) a couple of years ago to List of UFC events. (It now goes to 2012 in UFC). Any objections? Cheers.

Convenience links:

• Log
• History

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just came here for the same reason as a request for un-protection was made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Could you either un-protect it or indicate why you think it should still be protected. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank. For some stupid reason I forgot to go look at the link they gave. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zayed International Prize for the Environment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Carrapide.com Speedy deletion

This is how you keep Wikipedia all Western ! Go ahead ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assane101 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's save the good folks at RfD some time

I noticed that with this edit you've redirected Plowback retained earnings to Retained earnings instead of deleting it as per my nomination. I'd like you to reconsider that decision in light of the fact that plowback is synonymous with retained earnings which makes Plowback retained earnings an implausible search term and a confusing redirect to boot as it's effectively equivalent to Plowback plowback, or Retained earnings retained earnings. I'm sure you can appreciate the redundancy that exists there.

Here's a relevant quote from Microeconomics: Principles and Policy by William Baumol and Alan Blinder: "[t]he final major source of funds (...) is plowback, or retained earnings." There can be no mistake here; the two phrases are interchangeable rather than complementary. Plowback itself is a plausible redirect though; that's why I created it prior to nominating Plowback retained earnings for deletion.

If you still believe the page doesn't qualify for removal, please respond to this message indicating that at your earliest convenience. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plowback retained earnings. Since you had some involvement with the Plowback retained earnings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Killing of Roi Rotberg

Would you be willing to swing by and take another glance at this article. Against your advice, an editor started an AFD, which he has since withdrawn because the article has been substantially expanded. However, it needs someone to close it (or not). Thx.ShulMaven (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello WilyD:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Serendi^podous 13:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Oort cloud and asteroid

Please explain what you mean exactly with your short "explanations". --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your original research. In this case, MNRAS, ApJ, AJ, A&A, Icarus, and so on are available for that purpose. In the interim, articles need to reflect the published ideas of scholars and other authors, and not your own opinion. Simply repeatedly inserting your own opinion into articles is not allowed, either. If you know better than all the scientists and educators who've worked on the subject, publish your work elsewhere first. WilyD 11:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear what's unclear to you. What you think things should be called doesn't matter unless you publish it in a reliable source; in the interim, it's Paul Weissman's, Hal Levison's, and other people who've published reliable works on the subject whose opinion matters. WilyD 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming rather bad faith. I'll be more clear to you by reformulation my edit summary another way: How is using the terms "non-outgassing", "minor planet", and using the most common convention for the word "asteroid" and the one Wikipedia uses (!), 'publishing my original research'? --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me. I'm clearly not assuming bad faith. You're experienced enough that you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a publisher of your opinion, but you're doing it anyways, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt. But you know now (or if you're still unfamiliar with the policy on publishing your own research here, please go read it). It's not okay to replace the terminology of the literature (and other published sources, I suppose) with one you've cooked up yourself. WilyD 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean! You don't really explain what is "my own opinion" about it, yet you accuse me of publishing it. I do not see any opinion at all. "Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, not a term that I've 'cooked up'. Or do you deny that 1996 PW is a) a minor planet, and b) that it does not outgas? --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying your conclusions don't flow logically. I'm merely saying you can't publish your conclusions here first. Publish them in Monthly Notices (or wherever) first, and then they can be included in Wikipedia. In the interim, we have to use the conclusions of people like Weissman, Hicks, and so forth, who've done that. WilyD 12:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How so "conclusions"?? You basically keep repeating that, but you don't explain it. And you should easily have noticed that you should stop responding on my talk page. --JorisvS (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Non-outgassing minor planet" is a description, of course, but the word used by scientists and other people familiar with the subject matter is asteroid. Beyond this, just because a description is accurate doesn't mean it's good - "non-sandwich" or "non-elephant" would obvious be correct descriptors, but would also be horribly misleading. It's your own conclusion "non-outgassing minor planet" is a good or appropriate descriptor. This could even be true (it's not - whether or not an object is currently active is not the distinction being drawn in the literature, of course), but it's still your own opinion, and hijacking Wikipedia to publish your own opinions is still not appropriate. WilyD 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking Wikipedia"? Seriously?

But thank you for finally actually responding. "Non-elephant" is vague, whereas "non-outgassing" (arguably better rephrased to "not known to be outgassing") is a specific (non-vague) term used to refer to a characteristic, so your comparison does not hold. The problem with parrotting specific words for specific instances is that it creates a non-uniformity in the meaning of the words, and hence creates unnecessary ambiguity and unnecessarily decreases clarity. Now, "asteroid" has always been a word without an exact definition, but has come to be increasingly referred to those minor planets out to the orbit of Jupiter, see asteroid. This is also the agreed-upon use on Wikipedia. Other minor planets have also occasionally been referred to as "asteroid", especially those that were discovered early, such as 944 Hidalgo (the first minor planet discovered with a semi-major axis beyond Jupiter's), and "asteroid" is sometimes also used to include all minor planets, including e.g. all Kuiper-belt objects. It is not OR to avoid referring to these as asteroids; OR refers to the actual content, not the specific terms used (nor the specific punctuation of terms, see e.g. this discussion). Moreover, this term is easily avoided by using more-specific and better-defined words, which increases the informative value to our readers anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Usurping the devices of Wikipedia to advance your own agenda to it's detriment; yes, hijacking is appropriate here. "Non-outgassing" is still your own idea, that doesn't come from the source (read the paper - it's like three pages long). And it's not simply rephrasing - the authors of the source is question would disagree with what you're saying. The sources say these are asteroids, and don't use outgassing/not outgassing as such a distinction (active asteroids certainly outgas). It's merely your own conclusion that the entire scientific community is wrong, and your own ideas are in fact right. WilyD 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's, again, assuming bad faith. I'm trying to have a decent discussion (WP:EQ), in which we can point out errors on each other's parts, without being accused of such strong things as 'hijacking', 'advancing your own agenda', and the like. If you think "non-outgassing" is wrong and should be reworded, perhaps to "without any evidence of cometary activity", just say that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't your intention to hijack Wikipedia to publish your own ideas, then stop trying to do it. It's not hard. Again, stop throwing transparently bogus charges at me; I haven't said anything about your intent, only factually described your actions. Beyond that, read Weissman & Levison; it's quite clearl they're talking about asteroids, not just bodies that don't show evidence of cometary activity. It's not hard to find - it's in the title (and repeatedly thereafter). Plus, your idea that you're trying to insert isn't even right; asteroids can display cometary activity: Active Asteroids. If you think they're wrong, find a source that suggests their wrong, don't just keeping trying to argue for your own idea. (Of course, I don't believe there are any sources that suggest they're wrong; but you're free to look). WilyD 09:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hijacking", and "publishing my own ideas" is not a factual description of my actions, but your interpretation of my actions. I have read that article. They primarily use "asteroid" in the sense of a 'rocky minor planet'. This is one of the more common uses of the word "asteroid". However, they do not claim that 1996 PW is an asteroid/rocky minor planet at all! They speculate about the possibility that it is one and compute probabilities. Therefore, it would, in fact, be OR to call 1996 PW an asteroid (as meaning a rocky minor planet) based on that article, because they acknowledge that it could be an extinct comet (icy body). Asteroids that display cometary activity has "asteroid" meaning 'minor planet from the inner Solar System', not in the sense that Weissman & Levison use it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

While they decide they can't tell if 1996 PW is an asteroid or not (and the subsequent papers on the subject run into the same problem), that's neither here nor there; the work still calculates the expect fraction of asteroids in the Oort cloud, and hasn't been refuted (unless there's something I'm not aware of, which is doubtful). Weissman & Levison calculate that the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids, which is the state of the art. This is the idea that the article needs to reflect, not your own ideas about what is or isn't an asteroid. If you want your ideas of what is or isn't an asteroid to appear in the article, send it to MNRAS first. WilyD 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the article reads "However, the discovery of the object 1996 PW, an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet, suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects.", with "an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet" specifically describing 1996 PW. This part is therefore simply not supported by the reference, because, per the reference, 1996 PW is not even known to be rocky (or an "asteroid" in Weissman & Levison's words). In sum, regardless of the specific definition of "asteroid" one prefers, the current phrasing is not supported by the reference.

The second part, "suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects" is meant to convey that 'the Oort cloud should [contain] a couple percent asteroids'. It is, however, not quite what the reference says. How you have said it is more in line with the reference, though, and more precise. --JorisvS (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, there's a phrasing problem here; 1996 PW's nature is unclear, and subsequent author(s) have interpreted it as an extinct comet nuclei. The Weissman & Levison paper is about the fraction of the Oort cloud that's composed of asteroids, but the phrasing does need to accomodate 1996 PW appropriately (or not mention it or something). WilyD 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How is "with an asteroidal appearance" better than "without observed cometary activity"? Don't say because the source says so, because that is not true: Paragraph 2 reads 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.'. Also, logic means that either 'research suggests that something is the case', or that 'something should be the case'. As for Category:Asteroids, it is a subcategory of Category:Minor planets, which is the more inclusive category (all asteroids are minor planets, but not vice versa). What is your rationale for including it alongside the other? --JorisvS (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is pretty clear on drawing the distinction between being asteroidal in appearance and being an extinct comet (as are the follow-up sources, such as Hicks et al.), as they don't mean the same thing. Try pushing beyond the second paragraph to the third paragraph, where they explicitly contrast "a comet that is no longer outgassing" and "an asteroid" (with two dynamical origins each). Pushing through the rest of the paper, you'll find it is concerned with how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud. It's only four pages long. If you'd stop relying on your own intuition as to what should or shouldn't be an asteroid, following the literature wouldn't be so hard. I might agree that Oort cloud should be in minor planets (since it overlaps with nothing there but Asteroids as it stands), but one could probably dig up a paper by Alan Stern or someone on Pluto-analogues in the Oort cloud. There are some double-categorying in the area (e.g., Asteroids is in Category:Bodies of the Solar System and the daughter Category:Minor planets), which might be reflective of terminology problems and/or use of obsolete terms (or as yet unsettled terms), I'm not sure. WilyD 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure they talk about how many asteroids end up in the Oort cloud (I've read it). However, those sentences are not specifically about 1996 PW, whereas the one I'm talking about is. I'm only trying to follow the source as truthfully as possible. I'm asking you how your phrasing about 1996 PW is better than mine considering what the reference says. I'm no longer talking about what are most commonly considered asteroids or not, because while discussing this it turned out not to be relevant here at all. Note that Pluto is also a minor planet (it has for example the minor-planet number 134340). Sometimes categories are added somewhat haphazardly and a category a parent category that is also a parent category of another of its parent categories. WP:Categorization tells that pages should only be in the most specific relevant categories, which means that adding a parent category of a parent category is redundant. That specific case you highlighted is a clear example of that (and hence I've rectified the situation). --JorisvS (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW is a bit of a red herring, since it's nature is never determined (and actually, it's former membership in the Oort cloud is just a probabilistic argument anyways). The context/paragraph in the article are pretty clear; they're about the composition of Oort cloud bodies, and the question is what fraction of the Oort cloud is cometary nuclei, and what fraction is asteroids. So you could remove the reference to 1996 PW, and just say "However, calculations of its formation have led to the expectation 1~2% of the bodies are asteroids, not cometary nuclei". Though I think it adds a bit of flow (and the article is pretty sparse as it is), so I don't particularly think that's a good idea. WilyD 10:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale for mentioning 1996 PW. Nevertheless, the phrase that directly follows its mention, which you changed to "with an asteroidal appearance", is not about the composition of Oort cloud objects in general at all, but specifically about the nature of 1996 PW. The composition of Oort cloud objects in general is handled after that phrase. The reference talks specifically about the nature of 1996 PW in the second paragraph saying 'However, physical observations have failed to detect any evidence for cometary activity in 1996 PW.', which means that "without observed cometary activity" is most true to the reference. --JorisvS (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the source closely and object only using arguments that are actually based on facts. You'll then see I'm not pushing my own interpretation at all. --JorisvS (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, read the paper. 1996 PW looked like an asteroid. It was followed up (by other groups, or perhaps Weissman in another paper? or even Levison did observational stuff in those days?) to look for cometary activity. Which lead Weissman and Levison to calculate a) the fraction of Oort cloud objects that they expect to be asteroids (1~2%), and whether 1996 PW is such an asteroid (50-50). Merely not being outgassing on it's own is uninteresting, most cometary nuclei aren't outgassing, because they're extinct, or because they're far from the Sun. Again, read Weissman and Levison, the whole thing. The repeat the phrase "although asteroidal in appearance, it has a comet-like orbit", it's quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is what's important (and that being asteroidal in appearance is very different from merely not displaying cometary activity). If the fact that follow-up observations were made is too confusing, this more modern reference ddraws the distinction more clearly. WilyD 10:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In what aspect is "asteroidal in appearance" supposed to be different from not displaying cometary activity (which can only happen close to the Sun)? --JorisvS (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A cheese sandwich does not look like an asteroid, none the less, it does not display cometary activity. More importantly, Extinct comets are comets that don't display cometary activity. There are a lot more considerations; which depend on the thermal history of the body and so on. Again, I recommend you read the source you keep citing, it's quite clear that the important thing is that it looks like an asteroid but orbits like a comet, which motivates the consideration. WilyD 10:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 PW also looked/-s like an extinct comet (in fact, follow-up research suggests that it is one). At that distance the only way to distinguish a(n oversized) cheese sandwich from an asteroid is its spectrum. Without a spectrum a cheese sandwich does look like an asteroid. 1996 PW's spectrum is type D, typical of type-D asteroids and extinct comets. The only thing that really made it 'look like an asteroid' was the lack of cometary activity, which at the time was unexpected for an object in such an orbit. --JorisvS (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is your idea, not found in the paper. The fact that it looked like an asteroid led Weissman and Levison to consider the question of how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it also looked like an extinct comet did not lead Weissman and Levison to consider how many asteroids are in the Oort cloud. The fact that it doesn't have a coma made the asteroidal interpretation more plausible (or at least, if someone looked and found a coma, they'd have concluded it was a mostly extinct comet), but isn't why Weissman and Levison suggested the Oort cloud should be a couple percent asteroids. With modern hindsight, it reasonable to conclude you shouldn't think about icy asteroids (as the Shannon et al. paper argues), but that's your idea, not Weissman et al.'s. If they believed then that you can't distinguish D-type asteroids from extinct comets, they wouldn't have done their follow-up observations (e.g., the Hicks paper). The Weissman paper is quite clear that the asteroidal appearance is why the consider the idea, not merely the lack of coma. Even if it turns out that calling D-type asteroids is a mistake, we can't send that information back to 1997 to motivate W&L. WilyD 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question of what is supposed to be the difference. They knew full well that 1996 PW could turn out to be an extinct comet, but they wanted to figure out the probability that it wasn't one. If 1996 PW could (have) be(en) an asteroid, what is 'icy asteroids' supposed to mean? --JorisvS (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you read the Weissman and Levison paper, you'll find the answer to your question: they define asteroids as objects that formed at less than 5.2 au from the Sun. Now, I wouldn't do that, but for the purposes of the article, it's good enough, I guess (admittedly the article is not great, but one step at a time). The more recent paper uses icy/iceless distinction, and gets a similar (though sightly higher) rate. As far whether there's even a distinction between an extinct comet and a D-type asteroid, my guess is no, but again, my own ideas don't make it into the article until after I publish them, and it's irrelevant to the question at hand. The sentence says "Observations of 1996 PW found that it looks like an asteroid, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". This statement is true, because that observation prompted that research". The sentence "Observations of 1996 PW found that it didn't have a coma, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids" is false, because that observation did not prompt the research. It is true that it doesn't have a (detected) coma, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. It's also true that it looks like an extinct comet nucleus, but that isn't what prompted them to think about asteroids in the Oort cloud. WilyD 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for their definition of 'asteroid', nor whether there is a difference between D-type asteroids and extinct comets. I'll answer it: 'Looks like an asteroid' is not an observation, but an interpretation of an observation: One can't look and see that 'it looks like an asteroid', one can see something and interpret that as 'it looks like an asteroid'. When another step is inserted, it would be okay; the first step could then be left implicit: "Observations of 1996 PW (found that it didn't have a coma and) were interpreted as asteroidal in appearance, which prompted research that lead to the suggest we should expect 1e-2 of the Oort cloud to be asteroids". However, phrasing it this way is rather clumsy and the current sentence in the article is better anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's still wrong. Again, read the papers. 1996 PW has the colours of a D-type asteroid (within the observational errors & whatnot). That's what makes it look like an asteroid. Not having a coma doesn't make you look like an asteroid (e.g., cheese sandwiches). "Looks like" is somewhat imprecision language, but Weissman is expressing his ideas, not yours. WilyD 14:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the spectrum, not the coma (though the article doesn't what made them interpret it as 'asteroidal in appearance'). The core of what I've said is not affected: 'Looks like an asteroid' is an interpretation regardless and the current phrasing is also better regardless. --JorisvS (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my page while I was editing it..

Hey I was just editing my page as you deleted it. Can you please reinstate The Free World Charter article so I can complete my edits? Thank you, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkfield (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the work at RfD

I just wanted to say thank you to argue vigorously but politely and sensibly at RfD: Not just today but always you do. You are usually wrong but seem to win a lot :)

In your honour, I am eating peanut butter spread over a Lorenz transformation. Apparently it says PBPBPBPB--------LZ------PB----.. No hang on, that is the label on the jar.

Keep up the good work, may we long disagree! Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's a Lorenz cipher... no wonder my hands got sticky... Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nevada

Hello, WilyD,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Your comments are welcome.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9A:860:DD6B:693A:ACF:B874 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Temporary restore?

Hello. I wonder if it would be possible to restore temporarily the ability of non-sysop editors to see the article that is the subject of the AfD deletion review at [44] in which we are taking part, and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template. Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. DGG has done the honors. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ancient CSD

Declined - "Ancient" is a good clue it wasn't made up by the writer ...and the total lack of sources is an even better clue that it was. Bazj (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Afileforthepurposeofdiscussiononthekuiperbeltpage.png

Thanks for uploading File:Afileforthepurposeofdiscussiononthekuiperbeltpage.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Randomplotofwhichicanspeakonlyill.png

Thanks for uploading File:Randomplotofwhichicanspeakonlyill.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you userfy a few articles and their respective talk pages

Per this AfD I noticed a few other articles which were soft deleted without full discussion.

• Gardener's Lane
• Ballahutchin Hill
• Glenlough

Can you userfy these article plus their talk page? Thanks

Also Melissa Dettwiller please, I have found a few sources and am contesting the PROD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi,

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this DRV for Involuntary Celibacy, I'm not following what policy based argument the Endorse closure stands by. The two version are completely different and the sources are secondary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Alovestoryofthescattereddiskandcentaurs.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Alovestoryofthescattereddiskandcentaurs.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Aplotoftheoutersolarssystemwithcentaursandsdos.png

Thank you for uploading File:Aplotoftheoutersolarssystemwithcentaursandsdos.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Plotoftheoutersolarssystememhasizingtrojans.png

Thank you for uploading File:Plotoftheoutersolarssystememhasizingtrojans.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ushin

Ushin Language Institute is a English language learning center, not a degree-grantingschools. Such schools come under G7. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year WilyD!

Happy New Year!

WilyD,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Nice to see you at RfD

Nice to see you at RfD. Happy New Year to all you and yours. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting new created Wikipedia articles

Hello, you recently deleted an article I created and I wanted to know your reasoning behind the deletion as well as why your reasoning was not clearly explained. The article was for "Kevin Weston Football Coach". I realize you have a constant presence on this site (as the article I am referring to was deleted within 15 hours of it being posted to the site) so your immediate feedback is appreciated and expected. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britannijt (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delauter

Really, though, is that an assertion of significance, or an assertion of "regional politician said something that blew up in his face before returning to previous levels of notability"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page content

Hi, you have removed a page I created and I would like to get that content back to continue working on it. I realise that I created the page in the wrong way, and I have now created a draft via the Article Wizard. Thanks Mrey4957 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ireland–Zambia relations

hi, 4 years ago you added a whole lot of links to the bottom of the article. Have you considered incorporating them into the article? thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Miss Contestants

Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive Title created by one of thee indef SOCKS. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NickOrnstein

Sorry I don't understand your close. Your statement that the result was "Active user working in longevity-related topics" doesn't seem to make any sense in terms of the issue. Where was there any discussion about the editor's editing and its relation to keeping the content on his user page? Was there any doubt about it? There was no question that the user was active (although he hadn't edited an article and months and was mostly just working on his user page). The keeps votes from the editor, User:SiameseTurtle, and User:Longevitydude each argue that the user had a right to whatever he wants on his page (which is true, but subject to limitations), and that making personal attacks against the nominator. I note that Longevitydude removed the MFD tag on the basis that "his friend" shouldn't be harassed and that these user pages are their business. These editors also work in the same topic but that seems to have been ignored. In contrast, the delete votes at the very least acknowledge that there are BLP concerns which have been entirely ignored. WP:BLP applies to all pages, not just articles and the remedy is immediate removal, not simply telling the editor about it (who hasn't acted on it). At the very least, the moderate position was the blanking of the tables and directing the user to work on the actual encyclopedia, either through the project or on the article pages. All we have a fork of the table at Oldest_people#Oldest_people_ever with flags which seems to be his personal preference. Finally, your close admits that there is a possible BLP issue with his user page. I'd suggest you reconsider the close. At the very least, I think removing the unsourced names would be in line with policy and essentially remove most of the content anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your response makes it seem like you can in with a super-vote than a view of the consensus there. The other relevant section is privacy, namely sourcing the living people. As to it being "Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities and Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future", how is this a work in progress? If this was a draft page or some sort, I'd agree but this is nothing more than an editor using the page as a webhost. The top section there is List of the verified oldest people, the bottom section is an assortment of names from List of living supercentenarians and the middle section (which would be a legitimate work in progress to something) has had no progress in terms of the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:NickOrnstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:NickOrnstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Killer Bees

Hi! - Even when they were removed for an invalid reason? (it was removed because "Given most of the topics at the disambig are "Keeper of the Bees" not "The Keeper of the Bees" it seems unlikely to be uncontroversial." - However, the reality is that 3 of the 4 do use the word "The" in the title). If that's the case, what recourse should I follow? Thanks! Onel5969 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Coopersale Hall School

This is a primary school. hence not exempt from speedy deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Americas

Hi, Wily D. I want to avoid an edition war in the article Americas, so I will justify my editions here.

1) I included Central America as a subdivision in the Portuguese Language, based in the undeniable fact that, in that language, North America usually doesn't include the Isthmus. You can see the map in the Portuguese article América do Norte (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica_do_Norte). The previous source stating that in Portuguese the Americas are divided just by North and South was wrong, and that is why I changed the source for a more reliable one.

2) I made a minor change in which Latin America was replaced by Hispanic America, in the part where it is discussed how people from some parts of the Americas may identify themselves as Americans and are offended by the use of the term to refer solely to US citizens. The fact is that, unlike in Hispanic countries where "estadunidense" is a common term, and perhaps the most popular, in Brazil it is seldom used. Whenever someone says "americano/americana", people will assume it is a US citizen and, unlike the Hispanics, Brazilians don't usually identify themselves as "americanos". The situation is different with the term "América", which in Portuguese refer to the Continent, not USA. If you say "América" while talking in Portuguese people will assume it is the Continent, so using it as USA may lead to confusion or even offense, but that is definitely not the case with the term "americano". Were Brazil a small Latin American country sharing the same language of the others, we could allow it to be a minor unmentioned exception in a Latin American custom of using "americano" for the whole Continent instead of US. But actually Brazil is much larger than any other country in the region, by any criteria (population, economy, area, military, etc.) and is linguistically the most distinct. Whenever someone says "Latin America", Brazil must be included, or else that person would better say "Hispanic America", and that is what I changed for.

3)There was a list of acceptable terms to refer to US citizens in Portuguese, but the list showed unusual and usual terms altogether, I just added the information that "americano" and "norte-americano" were the most common. Estadunidense is seldom used and "ianque" is extremely rare, but without the information I gave it seemed "ianque" was jus as acceptable as the far more common "norte-americano".

I will reintroduce my changes, please contact me if there is a disagreement with any of those points. Oli1944 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree in deleting those parts and we should probably do so for the other languages as well. By the way, it was not clear in your comment if your experience with a Brazilian was about the term "America" or the term "American", as while the first one seldom refers to USA (in Brazil), the second one usually does. It was probably about the first one, so. Anyway, about the Central America issue, I will remake the change. The source provided to say América is divided as North and South in Portuguese does have a North and South map, but in the Regional Division section, it states that there are several ways to make the division and go on saying that in the "first division" it is divided in North, Central and South ("Na primeira divisão, esse continente é dividido em América do Norte, Central e do Sul"). The "second division" is actually about Latin and Anglo-Saxonic Division ("Na segunda divisão, há uma separação entre América Anglo-Saxônica e América Latina"). Nowhere in the source it states that Central-America is part of North America. The fact that the map is presented in two halves may be possibly to fit that space or even because the map was taken from a English written source, in which Americas are only North and South. When we see the map of that article without reading it we get the wrong idea about the subdivisions of Americas in Portuguese, but reading it we can clearly see it does not support the original claim of North and South. I believe I don't even need to bring another source or start a discussion in the talk page to make that singular change, as it is obviously a situation in which the source was misused. Using google translator any editor will agree with me that the article actually supports a three parts division, so I am doing this correction. Oli1944 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Alternativet (Denmark)

I'd like to question the deletion of the article Alternativet (Denmark). Alternativet is a Danish political party, that is nearing it's right to run for the Danish Parliament. The Danish article (da:Alternativet) has existed since fall 2014. --Kim Bach (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Mia Khalifa

I was wondering if you would be interested in being involved in a AfD for Mia Khalifa? I think sources suggest she is clearly notable, but currently does not pass WP:PORNBIO and does passed WP:BIO. What is your opinion? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In your version of English...

...whatever it happens to be, are these two words pronounced the same?

• You ought to go to the store right now!
• Please go out the door and get the newspaper.

If not, then "withought" is in no respect a plausible typo for "without", which is a combination of "with" and "out", "without". Please do not remove the speedy delete request again. BMK (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to I Am (Leona Lewis album), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.The album doesn't have a release date, so it's not notable. The draft was created to make an article until it has a release date, and has a whole edit history spanning months. You say I blanked it, but the draft was simply copied and pasted into the new mainspace article, and wasn't created with that prose. So please do your research before you assume.  — ₳aron 11:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at I Am (Leona Lewis album). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Again, don't add copied and pasted content from a draft article with a whole edit history.  — ₳aron 11:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Baumann Skin Types

This appears to reproduce entire paragraphs from [45] as seen at [46]. While that Raymondlouis page appears to mirror the earlier (now deleted) Wikipedia page as of 1 Aug 2011, I can't see that, as I am not an admin. Could you please verify? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the original AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baumann skin types, it was deleted as a copyvio of [47], which it was (and the current version is not). The current version does look like a copy of [48] - which both contains a copyright notice, and a notice that the guy doesn't own the content. So it probably is a copyvio (though of a different source) - though the weirdness might make using Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations worthwhile, I don't know. WilyD 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the para from the article (p.128 bottom) beginning "This is the only" is still there almost verbatim. Was that para in the old article, too? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's there almost word for word (indeed, the whole article is almost word for word), but I don't see what you're seeing in the current version. WilyD 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages, as you did with ReGlobe. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Instead of deleting the tag, contest the speedy deletion if you have a problem with it. JZCL 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at JZCL's talk page.
Message added 16:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JZCL 16:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at JZCL's talk page.
Message added 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JZCL 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilyD. You have new messages at JZCL's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JZCL 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Wily, You are removing speedy deletion tags without giving any reasons. You should better challenge the deletion at appropriate forum. Can you tell where the earlier deletion of Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management is declined? Was there any discussion over it which resulted of keeping it? There are enough reasons given for deleting the page which is a complete promotional page of a non notable college. Kindly challenge the reasons before removing any wikitag. Shekhar 09:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter May

When you performed the G6 move on Peter May, you should have restored it to the article Peter May (cricketer)- this was how it was before the controversial move here. On another note, please could you also move Peter May (obscure nobody) back to Peter May (writer)- I was trying to make a point about controversial moves, but realise that it was stupid and inappropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation

Just FYI on the speedy delete i put on that page. The Article was created, as was Old Catholic Confederation in the United States and Collegium augustinianum by one or more editors.. who.. how shall I say it? There are people out there, anglican-related mostly, who create elaborate church entities and give themselves fancy titles and the like, when there is really nothing there. They seem harmless (as far as I know right now) but these articles were created in furtherance of their fancy. The articles really are promotional in the sense of creating something that tries to show the validity of these entities; to promote something like this, the tone is very serious etc; it isn't promo like you find for some weight loss dietary supplement Anyway, we've gotten two deleted; this is the last to go. I only recently learned about this, and am still learning. Just wanted to let you know why i G11'ed it. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

speedys

Sorry about Sunkalp Energy. I had not noticed it had been unsucessfully speedied before. I should have noticed, of course. I listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkalp Energy DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at RfD

This might sound a strange thing to say, since we are usually protagonists battling against each other at WP:RFD, but I sincerely appreciate your contributions. You are always wrong, almost by definition (and so am I), but that is how we make the encyclopaedia better, isn't it? I will often oppose you, but it's not personal, and you have never personally attacked me (and I hope I haven't you, if it seemed so, was simply a mistake: I attack the argument not the person). We're both just making the encylopaedia better. I reckon we are about fifty-fifty on who "Wins", at RfD, but I sincerely thank you for contributing, there aren't many of we regulars there, and we all keep it kinda spinning. Back to the battle, then! Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oort cloud and asteroid

No, I'm not trying to. You should read the source and carefully look into what they are actually saying. --JorisvS (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you've read the cited article, you'll know it's about asteroids and not rocky bodies. We've had this discussion before. Look at the Weissman & Levison article before assuming you know what it says. Funnily enough, these guys actually try to draw a distinction between rocky and icy bodies, though of course they repeated call them "asteroids" (and of course, there's possibly metallic non-rocky bodies and so on as well. If you want to fix the terminology problems in how we refer to minor planets, that's admirable, but through the IAU or MNRAS or something is the place to do it, not Wikipedia. WilyD 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT RESPOND ON MY TALK PAGE, BUT HERE. I'll see your responses.

They do indeed make a distinction between rocky and icy bodies! And they repeatedly called them asteroids. Now, of course, the term "asteroid" is not precisely defined. This means that a) the term is somewhat vague, b) Wikipedia has to decide which definition to use. Wikipedia uses the definition "any minor planet up to the orbit of Jupiter, incl. its trojans" (no, I had nothing to do with that), which includes some rather icy bodies such as Ceres. Normally, and especially in an encyclopedia, it is better to use precise language. Because "asteroid" is vague, it is better to use a different term to be precise in what they exactly mean to say. Instead of "rocky bodies", we could alternatively say "bodies that formed in the inner Solar System". --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page isn't just for you to receive messages, it also serves as an archive of messages you've received so it's clear to all you've already been cautioned about your problematic behaviour (and help connect patterns of bad behaviour). As such, it's important that messages to you about how it's inappropriate for you to use Wikipedia to publish your own ideas belong here. Your own ideas about what minor planets should be called (or what Paul, Hal, or whoever might secretly) aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Instead, we need to stick to what sources say and mean - we can't say "bodies that formed in the inner solar system, because Weissman & Levison don't say or mean that. You might not like asteroid (nor, really, do I, though I recognise the practical difficulties in re-aligning all the literature terminology in a single fell swoop), but that's not for here. Try the IAU or MNRAS or whoever. WilyD 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I like to keep discussions in one place, so that they're actually a good archive and not fragmented. If you like to have a notice on my talk page (or even have the entire discussion copied there), that's fine with me. Either you're not actually reading what I'm saying, or you don't understand what I'm saying (or you don't want to?). In the former case, read it, carefully. Else you can ask questions or at least say that something isn't quite clear. In any case, don't assume my motivations (like you've been doing), because you're dead wrong about them. In fact, if you'd read what I've said, it shoud've been clear to you already that they are dead wrong. --JorisvS (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

James Dello Russo

FYI, I just restored the CSD you removed from this article. The references you referred to were not for the subject of the article, but were for his father. If my actions are a concern, I can move to an AfD. Let me know, thanks. reddogsix (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

TUJF Deletion

Hello, you deleted the Toronto Undergraduate Jazz Festival recently I believe because of non-independent sources which could not be considered as appropriate references in regards to its importance. Before I create the article again I am requesting you review new sources I have gathered from the founder's previous work in establishing the Korean Undergraduate Jazz Festival.

http://www.thedistillerydistrict.com/entertainment/ http://www.campuslife.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=16773 http://contests.saramin.co.kr/interviews/view?seq=8178 http://press.uos.ac.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=7245 http://youngsamsung7.tistory.com/entry/%EA%B3%B5%EC%97%B0%EA%B8%B0%ED%9A%8D%EA%B0%80-%EC%9D%B4%EB%AA%85%EC%9E%AC%EB%8B%98 http://www.hkrecruit.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=12178 http://www.mapoartcenter.or.kr/board/view_1.asp?B_CATEGORY=0&B_CODE=BOARD_1207691149&search_category=&searchstring=&gotopage=5&IDX=83 http://www.fnnews.com/news/201001271808086051 http://cafe.naver.com/jazzfestival1/11147 http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/people/2010/06/178_67460.html http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/culture/2011/02/135_81067.html

Please get back to me, thanks.

Claytoncarmichael (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note about Book talk:War Book talk: Volume 1

This page is probably going to be recreated by Cyberbot I (run by Cyberpower678). Please see User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 23#Bug with Cyberbot I creating Book talk: pages for further information. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at fixing it again. It should work this time.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You can deleted the page now. The bug has been fixed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Page Deletion question

Boxing Ego deletion. Hii i was wondering if i can grab an archive of the deletion of Boxing Ego, I want to try and do it within the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacbradley2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello i was currently working on my page RedArcGaming and was deleted in the proccess by you, could i ask how it was advertising.

You have an itchy deletion finger. Comedy Dynamics was deleted without any discussion or consideration and it shouldn't have been. The organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, including The New York Times. Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance and the organization has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture and entertainment. Just because large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability doesn’t mean smaller organizations and their products can’t be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I put a page up, Republic Metals Corporation, which you deleted for not having notable sources. I would like to put the page back up, but rather then linking all of the sources to Republic Metals website, as was done before, link the citations directly to the independent sources. Would this be acceptable? Please let me know so I can begin on putting it back up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilastrul (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fletchers Solicitors

Thanks for the temporary undelete. I can't find the page. When I click on the link I am taken only to an empty page with a tag on the top. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am uncertain about what to do. I asked for the WP:Speedy deletion to be rescinded and for the article instead to go for discussion to WP:AFD so that I can get some idea from the WP:Community as to how it can be improved. The whole thrust of my discussion was to prevent deletion, and then to improve it. I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed because this is uncharted territory for me, even though I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not having heard from you, I am making my points at the Speedy deletion appeal, which is probably what you would have told me to do anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read your comments on my talk page. Thanks for responding. Regarding Fletchers, there is now a truncated version at User:BeenAroundAWhile/sandbox. What do you suggest I do with it? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my correspondence with you, I will be paid by 90 Digital for all of my work on this article. If I write you about something else, it's my dime. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Resonance Kota

You are right, I didn't go far enough back in the history. The version I deleted was riddled with spam and possible copyright violation. I've now restored to the version of 1 March 2015, which looks fairly clean. I've also watchlisted this, and I may semi if spamming from ISPs continues, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've indeffed User:ResonanceEdu as a spamuser name making highly promotional edits. I suspect that this is probably at least one of the spamming ISPs, but let's see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your RFD !votes

I want to preface this by saying that sometimes I think that foreign language redirects should be kept. I !voted to keep 愛, for example (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_8#.E6.84.9B). I also don't have a problem with you !voting to keep foreign-language redirects, in general. I understand the argument and respect it. That being said, it isn't a good idea to say that "there isn't a reason given for deletion." By saying that, it is a personal attack against the nominator and a very weak argument that doesn't hold much merit. In fact, it is an argument for deletion and one that has been upheld on several occasions. Instead, you should be explaining why you think foreign-language redirects should be kept because is a much stronger argument and one that actually has some truth to it. Remember that these discussions are not a vote. I respect you and I apologize if I have been too strong with my previous replies to you. But please have some respect back though and show that you are participating in the discussion instead of dropping off copy-and-pasted nonsense every time someone nominates a redirect that you think should be kept. As an example, my keep rationale got Ivanvector to change his opinion on the subject. Tavix | Talk  15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I am watching this page and would like a response here. Tavix | Talk  15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with some of the reasoning. It's not a personal attack to note that no rationale for deletion has been given - it might reflect badly on someone that they're nominated a redirect for deletion without providing a reason, but that's an inference that people reading the discussion draw, not anything I'm saying (and it's not an evaluation of any particular editor(s), but of the discussion). The same problem applies to the rest of what you're suggesting - when someone doesn't provide a reason a redirect should be deleted, I can't engage in a discussion, nothing has been provided to discuss. So, it's not really an "argument" - and I don't think I've ever argued keep based on that, but always on some rationale related to usefulness and such, but it's a note as to why it's impossible to weigh the merits of the deletion argument. It's a tough situation, and yes, I get left kind of talking to myself, but when nobody's discussing the merits of the redirect, I'm the only person I can find to talk to, as it were. WilyD 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When you say that "nothing has been provided to discuss"—it's simply not true. These rationales hinge on WP:RFOREIGN, which is an essay that expands and supplements WP:RFD#D8: "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Someone who nominates redirects of these type don't think they are useful because they are novel or very obscure synomyms. I don't see how you think that there is nothing provided to discuss from that. There is a lot you could do with that to demonstrate that they are not obscure and/or are useful. For example, you could provide examples of its use. If you do that, it goes a long way to invalidate that rationale and the redirect will be much more likely to be kept. (btw: in this context, I used argue in its original sense: "to declare, show, prove, make clear") Tavix | Talk  16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also confused by "I get left kind of talking to myself." In Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_3#Harijs_Poters, it doesn't look like you're talking to yourself. Three other people replied to your rationale and you haven't provided any responses. Tavix | Talk  16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that's factually wrong - people might quote RFOREIGN (or whatever), but there's no reason there. If I suggest "I can't respond to RFOREIGN because walking is a kind of cheese" you can't actually engage that - sure the grammar is correct, but there's no idea behind it that can be engaged - I mean, it's sort of technically true that one could have a Monty Python-esque "yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is" kind of argument, but you can't have a discussion who !vote delete per WP:WIKIGNOME or whatever - if there's no reasoning in it, you can't say anything. If no one else is willing to think about what they're writing, I can only engage myself. Sure, people write words in response, but I can't engage words, only ideas, in which there are none. WilyD 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To address: "there's no reason there" in RFOREIGN... Yes there is. It's not "nonsense" like you suggest. It expands upon WP:RFD#D8 which states "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Does that make sense to you? Tavix| Talk  20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If it were true, it might make sense, but since it's not true, it doesn't make sense. Novel or very obscure search terms aren't likely to be used, so they're useless (almost tautologically) - common and/or proper terms are likely to be used, so they're useful. "Many people like the taste of the Moon, while many do not" is just nonsense, not an expansion of "Many people like the taste of blue cheese, while many do not". It would be a reasonable expansion if the Moon were made of blue cheese, but since it's unambiguously not, it just ends up being a bunch of gibberish. WilyD 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with something to understand it. I understand a lot of viewpoints that are not my own. Tavix| Talk  14:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your misplaced accusations

[49] Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do WP:OR. I'm actually talking about wanting a source for it, for crying out loud! --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RfD

Please read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. --Rubbish computer 16:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct at RfD

You are continuously stating that there is no rationale for deletion when various rationales are sourced. Please reply to this as soon as you get a chance. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 00:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This has become a thread at WP:ANI#User:WilyD and RfD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to tell you but my mobile was playing up. --Rubbish computer 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed

I've closed the thread because I appeared to be overreacting. Apologies, --Rubbish computer 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a page you deleted

Would it be possible to undelete Spectra Animation so I can continue working on it from there? If not, may I please know what was written there? Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to userfy an article

Hello! You are listed in the category Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Could you userfy the deleted article James Wilder (actor) and its history into my userspace? --Bensin (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Draft:25 (Adele album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draft:25 (Adele album) 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/Draft:25 (Adele album) 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.  Seagull123  Φ  21:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:25 (Adele album)

Draft:25 (Adele album), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:25 (Adele album) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:25 (Adele album) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Americas

I'm curious why you reverted my removal of the reference to an examiner.com article in the lead of Americas. That site is on the spam blacklist (which is why the ref is malformed, since it cannot contain a working external link); the consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard appears to be that examiner.com is not to be treated as a reliable source; and the information that is so referenced actually has several scholarly references in the body of the article. So what's the deal? Deor (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, WilyD, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the PriceMDs.com page

Hi this is regarding the deletion of the PriceMDs.com page. I was editing the page in order to inform the reader about a company that I cam across. I would like to recreate the page, just as an informative page with factual info about the company that would be supported by appropriate references. Do you have any advice for me on re-doing the page so that it will not get deleted? (Soccer4545 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, WilyD. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi WilyD/Archives.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WilyD. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Alovestoryofthescattereddiskandcentaurs.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Alovestoryofthescattereddiskandcentaurs.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On Cassandra Saturn Article 2015

i wanted to inform others who were on that article review to please read 172.58.40.180 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WilyD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, WilyD/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Mapfiable (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Weidenhammer Packaging Group

The article Weidenhammer Packaging Group has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The page appears to only exist as an advertisement. Give that youre the only non-banned major contributor I thought I'd let you know.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless they want money....

"My kid is now old enough he often wants me to leave him alone" LOL. Been there. Welcome back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was going to say what Floq said, but usually it's just a phase they go through. I know it can sting, I was/am a single parent and know the feeling well; but it will pass. And yes - welcome back. — Ched (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Oh, thanks. But's he's still young enough my response is far more along the lines of "Thank fuck for that, I'm-a lie down." When they're young enough they always need your help to be entertained, it's exhausting. WilyD 04:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Like a River to the Sea

I put it up for G6 because I wanted to move Like a River to the Sea (song). Another user declined the G6 not to contest the deletion, but to give me pagemover rights so I could do it myself. For some reason, those pagemover rights aren't working right for me, so I feel that in this case reinstating the G6 was valid. I won't reinstate it again in the interest of not looking like I'm edit warring or abusing deletion tags; I just thought you should know the context of my retagging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding DarkNight vs IP 86.134.75.242

I think I should make it absolutely clear here that in no shape or form have I ever stated that I am Jasper Vine, or any of the numerous alleged sock accounts DN seems to be seeing everywhere. At least, not intentionally. I suppose I may possibly have made a typo or something that gave that impression though. It gets rather difficult editing a thread where people move comments around and hide them halfway through an edit. Could you perhaps provide a link clarifying where exactly you think I'd made a statement to that effect? 86.134.75.242 (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in the SP/I, I think I misunderstood the comment about dynamic IPs. WilyD 07:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Clutter family murders

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Clutter family murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Clutter family murders again. Another issue arose, and I asked a follow-up question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivory-billed woodpecker

I recently edited a paragraph that discusses five papers on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that were published between 2011 and 2019. The previous version of that paragraph didn't accurately represent the content of the papers, which contain the most extensive body of original material (e.g., three videos that have been published) on this topic since 1944. I am not going to waste my time with an editing war. So I have deleted the entire paragraph. If the paragraph is restored in a way that is not accurate, however, I will delete it.

Lonleafpine (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you suggested removing the discussion of the Kulivan report from the ivory-billed woodpecker page. That report was the most consequential of the past several decades. By motivating others to search for these birds, it ultimately led to reports of sightings in Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana that were later published by scientists.

Lonleafpine (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How is including an accurate date a BLP violation? Why is it appropriate and relevant to mention the date in virtually every detailed account of this sighting, but not on Wikipedia? PragmaticRealist (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivory-billed woodpecker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page China white (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I know the move is controversial, but we have a WP:RM going for that discussion right now. However, I'm trying to restore the pages back to how they were prior to the copy/paste move that was performed by the other editor (which is how we got into this situation in the first place). Can you delete This Year's Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or do I really need to make another WP:RM to move the other page back? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Marine8994‎

Hello, you declined my speedy of the above on the grounds that 'most of this user's edits are in draftspace'. That does appear to be the case but up until I moved User:Marine8994/sandbox to Draft:267th Military Police Company with this edit, (at around the same time... about 6.45 UTC 3 December) all their contributions were to the user page or user sandbox. If it is the case that the 'webhost' userpage cannot be deleted because the user sandbox has been moved to draftspace, then what is the correct method to get rid of the inappropriate userpage please? They don't seem to have edited at all since the page move etc. (per here). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kartikeya Sharma restored

As a courtesy, this is to notify you that an article you supported for deletion in a recent deletion review, Kartikeya Sharma, has been restored to mainspace with new information and sources. You may wish to examine the new version to see if you have any remaining concerns regarding notability. SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

🤓

🤓 You should have let it remain deleted :D Lourdes 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Could'a, would'a, should'a. Things we all regret. WilyD 16:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Re:Denial of The Raab Collection

Hello, I'm a bit confused by your saying "Bogus speedy deletion tags." The article was created by NateRaab which makes it perfectly clear that it is only made to be promo fluff. Kb03 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivory-billed woodpecker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acorns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

General

Dear Sir/Ma'am

Thank you for removing the AFD tag from my created article Sir another tag has placed , they have put two tag in last hour and both time they said that content is promotional and you have removed the tag now they said artist stuff is promotional. please dig into this as this is not my first time they have deleted my few articles which were based on notable they have a group of 2-3 people who occasionally nominate my page for AFD see this latest one every one says that article is ok but nothing happens.

I hope you will look into this and help wikipedian contributor like me who works voluntarily and help wikipedia but when article get deleted because of personal issue this harm people like me.

ThanksMemon KutianaWala (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature is causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint errors, and also uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. The behavior of the Tidy bug has changed; starting in June 2018 the font color effect was removed, although it still works in some cases, such as your signature.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|<span style="color:#FF8800;">D</span>]] : WilyD

to

[[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|<span style="color:#FF8800">D</span>]] : WilyD

—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nifty, thanks. WilyD 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving your reply from my talk page to your talk page. Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

removal of Brisbane Roar FC II and Adelaide United FC II articles

How can I access these now deleted articles, as I would like to review their content as these were split/forked off a different article (not just renamed), and I did not get around to reviewing during the associated processes of article renaming (see discussion at Talk:Adelaide United FC Youth). I am suspecting that as we ended up with two articles for different age brackets of the same team, that the current articles - Brisbane Roar FC Youth and Adelaide United FC Youth - are now missing some of the information that had been forked into these 2 deleted articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

To start with, Thank you. but I'm a little confused about the move you just made. does this mean that the articles were blanked prior to deletion, as you have sent me articles without any text in them. How would i get what the articles looked like say 1-2 weeks ago? Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Landbay, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Telegraph and Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Becker

Hi, just a small note regarding this edit that the previous AfD was closed not as "redirect" but as "delete and redirect". Thanks and best wishes for the New Year! --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

WilyD,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The Cristian Pache discussion

Hi. I don't know if this is the right way to point an admin to the request I made on the discussion page on the close of the Cristian Pache article. But as I said there, I reiterated my request that I had originally made (without effect or response) the closer that an admin restore the deleted page temporarily. Also - I reiterated that if this were to be a redirect, an improper old version was used by the closer, missing a lot of the notability elements and updated information -- all sourced, rather than an appropriate current version that was being discussed by the end of the AfD, which is also is appropriate to have in either an article or a redirect. There is no reason for that material's deletion, and none was given. Also, I think that now when a reader looks up Crisitan Pache he will not see the mention of the discussion that is ongoing now, while if the page is temporarily restored it looks as though we provide that information to such readers, which seems to me to be a good thing. Anyway - and I apologize if it was not proper to ask you directly - would it be possible to temporarily restore the page as I had requested? It would I think lead to a fairer process. Thank you for considering it. --2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to leave messages for you, it'd be easier if you made an account. But, I've added a notice to the page indicating it's being discussed at Deletion Review. WilyD 09:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That is helpful. Thank you very much.

Maybe I'm missing something, though. First of all, when I click the reference to the review "discussion," it does not bring me to the discussion.

Also, the same problem remains that, unlike if the page is temporarily restored as I requested, the reader cannot with any ordinary skills easily find the page that was being discussed at the time of the close. That is a page that is different that the "redirect" page," which omits significant parts of the page that was being discussed at the close, and which a restore would .. restore (temporarily) for the non-admin reader to see. 2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, the template assumed the discussion was opened today, it was actually opened yesterday. I fixed it, it should click through properly now. Beyond that, when deleted articles are restored for discussion, they're always blanked; this is a very standard procedure and I don't think there's any chance of making some highly irregular exception. If inexperienced users can't find the history button, it can be easily pointed out to them (though, in practice, such people aren't liable to show up at Deletion Review anyhow). WilyD 09:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Or, I've changed it to the template for if the page was deleted, which makes the point explicitly. That's probably more appropriate. WilyD 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

As to the temporary restoration of the page, what I had in mind (perhaps I misunderstood it?) was this "Temporary undeletion" direction on the Deletion Review instructions page.2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That is how it is now. If you click on either the View History tab, or the linked word "history" in the template, it'll show you all previous versions of the page. Normally, if the page is deleted, not just redirected, it's impossible for non-administrators to see the old revisions, so undeleting but blanking the page serves to make the old revisions visible while trying to stay true to the decision to delete until there's a consensus to overturn it. WilyD 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. 2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleting article on Joe Dispenza

Hi, you recently deleted an article that I created for Joe Dispenza. The guy is quite popular and he charges enormous sums for his workshops and retreats. He has 180K subscribers on his Youtube channel. He is a charlatan in my view, but there are very few unbiased sources about him on the web, and they get pushed aside in search results by sponsored events and content created buy his marketing team. My wife is actually about to pay $2000 for one of his workshops, and that is why I tried researching him in the first place. I wanted to create a Wikipedia page that will have links to pages that criticize him and his practices as well.

The original deletion discussion was in 2010, and probably he was not that popular at the time. At the moment he has a treatment of a rock star / guru among his followers. -- Svrznik (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Fries’ Rebellion

Hi WilyD. I saw that discussion in the talk page but noted that it was only two users (the one who proposed the change and the one who supported the change but assumed it would not be approved because he thought the incorrect punctuation matched the majority of sources) and that it was from nearly 5 years ago. I checked the cited sources, further reading, & external links and all of them appear to use the correct (Freis’ Rebellion) punctuation rather than the incorrect (Freis’s Rebellion). I do not know if the incorrectly punctuated links that user InedibleHulk references have been swapped out for others or whether those non-Wikipedia sites have since corrected their own punctuation, but either way the concern expressed that linked and linking sites were unfortunately using the incorrect punctuation and thus it likely be best to leave the likewise incorrect Wikipedia version as is seems no longer valid. Also, please note the unsigned comment from 2013 on the talk page pointing out that the official historical marker erected at the site uses the correct punctuation as well. The US Dept of the Interior oversees the historical markers programmes in various states and requires that prior to erection, the text of historical markers be validated by the designated university history departments assigned this duty in each state for accuracy of claims and correctness of copy (for grammar and punctuation). This means that the erection of an official government historical marker at the site using the correct punctuation of Freis’ Rebellion versus the incorrect Freis’s Rebellion lends the version without the second ‘s’ as formally official sanctioned & vetted status as is possible in cases of historical places and events.

Given all of this, I do not feel the deletion of the existing redirect + move of the main article to the correct name + recreation of a new redirect to accommodate the incorrect punctuation would be at all controversial or contentious. Please reconsider the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bhavya Bishnoi

Hi. You have deleted Bhavya Bishnoi, please can you explain why? I am well aware it was previously deleted, but was deleted as a result of someone creating the article based purely on his standing in an election. He is also a first-class cricketer for Oxford University, which makes him notable per WP:CRIN and by extension WP:GNG. It really is frustrating when people just delete articles created by an editor with 10 years experience and don't even the good grace to drop me a message, or even start a new debate. May I request the article is reinstated. Thank you. StickyWicket (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Emma Vigeland

Is this[50] a formal end to the speedy delete process? Just to be clear, there are zero RS in the article: there are two clips to a web-show on the Hill, and a dead link to SF Gate that again seems to be a clip of something without any substantive coverage. Any AfD discussion will obviously conclude in favor of deletion, so is it really necessary to go through the formal process of a second AfD? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

My page move

I don't see anything at WP:DRAFTIFY about not moving pages during DRV. It could be something to specify or discourage though. I seem to remember moves being discouraged during AfD discussions (but still not disallowed), yet I still didn't find it now after a quick look at WP:AFD... —PaleoNeonate – 14:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So for WP:AFD I now found it (I had to search for moving vs move): "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress..." —PaleoNeonate – 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikiproject Reality Television

Template:Wikiproject Reality Television has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Penis (disambiguation)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Penis (disambiguation)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 19:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

pls save my article

Hey, User talk:WilyD i have created article Draft:Agnel Roman. it has article from times of india WP:NEWSBLOG and also there is another article in the Marathi language from Divya Bhaskar Marathi - another well-reputed newspaper of India see WP:NONENG this is admin is saying the notability issue bt there is no issue - pls help Thanks

Annki777 (talk) 16:40 , 06 february 2020 (UTC)

References

Creating new article, was previously speedy deleted

Greetings,

I submitted an article last week about the cancer research company Forty Seven Inc, which was then speedily deleted for copyright infringement. I understand why it was deleted and I have rewritten that section, thank you for the note. What is the next step to resubmit the article? The guides I have been reading say that I should contact you because you're the admin who marked it for deletion. Please advise, and thank you for your work.

FamousFrankie (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

More "American" soapboxing

Hi Wily, can you look at American (word)? An user on multiple IPs keeps changing cited content to declare the normal English usage as "erroneous". The first IP did open a discussion at Talk:United States#"American" demonym, as that article is semi-protected. Since "American (word)" is unprotected, they are changing it instead. I don't know it warrants semi-protection there yet, but I wanted to make you aware of it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting on Talk:American (word). Did you intend to post in the section where the most recent comment was from 2018? - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I make similar mistakes all the time! - BilCat (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Tex Earnhardt

https://www.earnhardtford.com/earnhardt-history.html Bil Mesa AZ EoGuy (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could restore the page on my user space. Thank you Idris.albadufi (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Diepiify

Please, restore the Diepiify page.

ElPran68Oficial (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeff J. Brown

As the page Jeff J. Brown was quickly deleted due to copyrights. I have now written the description in my own words. You are requested to have a look on it and approve it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsajids (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

212.121.212.73

Could you please block user:212.121.212.73 ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Diamond Standard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diamond Standard. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nixie9✉ 14:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Omegaprobank

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sports seasons and bulk deletions <- see link here

Hi WilyD, hope all is well!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Demokra (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Joa Helgesson

Hi WilyD - I created the page with text provided by Joa, I didn't think to check where it came from. Is there a way for me to retrieve what was deleted to save time with the rewrite? eg the info box and notable performance list don't need to change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseparlo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Venetian Village

Why did you remove the deletion template that I placed on Venetian Village? And why does it not meet the criteria for deletion? It has one reference, and the page length has been the same since it was created. You also misspelled 'references'. 71.208.32.185 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Cobb AfD

I noticed that you removed the AfD for the Andy Cobb article a while back. Another member has put it up for deletion again. As this is my first created article on Wiki can you help me understand how many times an article can be nominated for deletion? I have provided an example of other racing drivers from the same series with less references that have never been nominated for deletion. Why is this one being nominated multiple times? RacingFan247 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 DRV Close

Hi Wily. You closed the DRV on Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 as no consensus. No argument there. You then went on to write DRV procedures treat that "sort of" like an endorse, in that I won't pre-emptively restore the article, but I, or any other admin, can send it to draft or undelete it for a relevant merge or the like. I find that confusing. Can you point me to those procedures or similar closes by other admins? I'm not as regular at DRV as I was say 12 months ago but I still regularly am around and have not seen such a close and the actual writing at DRV says of no consensus in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Thanks for your time and clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Smooth-On, Inc.

Hello, I saw a recent comment on the Smooth-On page regarding some text which may require some edits due to 'jargon-y' content. Was there a specific section which seemed like it needed to be made more concise. Thank you so much. Hondo2160 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Roman Staněk

Hi! Can you draftify Roman Staněk for me please? Thanks. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Miss Grand DRV closure

Thanks for closing the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 15#Miss Grand. Since the result was to overturn the G4, without regard to the previous AfDs, I think the previous versions of Miss Grand International should be re-deleted (leaving the redirect behind)? (I've also moved the Old AfD template to the latter's talk page, since the articles' scopes, though overlapping, are rather different.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi can you lower the protection

Hello there WilyD I woukld love to create a fresh draft on Ashish Chanchlani as I have more than enough new sources which are highly reliable to get an article on him

• He just got listed under Forbes 30 Under 30 in the Indian edition of forbes in 2021 See This.
• He Won Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards in 2021 see This
• Yesterday only he got Nominated under the catagory Popular Social Media Stars for Indian Television Academy Awards, apart from this he has sources like This which makes his suitable enough to get an article, thus I request you to allow me to create the article as all of these are the new sources apart from many others which was presented there at DRV or lower the protection level so that I can get the draft created, Thanks Dtt1^Talk 07:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wily

Hi,

I requested the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship, can you please re-open it now since it was approved?
Adding:

• 2018 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2017 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2016 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2015 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2014 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2013 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2012 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2011 in SUPERKOMBAT
  
  

Thank you!

.karellian-24 (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will do this first. Then the others. How much is the draft period? Thanks! .karellian-24 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

DRV closes

Re: [51]...don't worry, it's been a day for it: [52] [53] [54]. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 27

Hi, You just closed the DRV for John Allen (Irish cricketer) as "overturn". I am a bit surprised by that: there were several well-argued "endorse" !votes, so I was expecting a "no consensus" close of the DRV. I'd appreciate if you could have another look at this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DRV closing

The template {{drv top}} signs your close automatically, so if you add the conventional four tildes, then you get a double-signature on the close (as with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 31). You can get around this either by leaving off the four tildes, or else using the (undocumented) |sig=no parameter to suppress the autosign feature. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh right. Okay, thanks. WilyD 11:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC) WilyD 11:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha, excellent!—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Howdy! I was you were approved by the cabal, and I was wondering: would you be willing to grant me rollback rights? I just passed the 200 edit threshold and thought I could contribute better to Recent Changes Patrol with Huggle. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello WilyD

I am a student a the Fernandina Beach high school and also the school president, i am currently the one in charge of our Wikipedia page i am trying to obtain the rollback capability. It would mean a lot to me and my team, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamvr (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kushal Awatarsing

Dear Willy,

I wanted to work on the following page Kushal Awatarsing which is currently protected because earlier there were no enough experience on Editing and Creating Wikipedia pages, is it possible to move the page back to Draft:Kushal Awatarsing so that i can work on it and shall respect all guidelines making sure there are enough articles before submitting it even as a stub class. Can you please advise?

Thank you, HappyMauritius (talk)

Unsalting request

Hello! The deletion log states that you were responsible for the salting of Mirror Media in 2012, because other editors repeatedly recreated an article about a company that read like an advertisement. My userspace draft is unlikely to be about the same company, but does share a name with the deleted article, and I would appreciate help moving that draft to mainspace. If you're curious, here is an article on the Chinese Wikipedia about the same topic as the draft I have just created. Thanks! Vycl1994 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:WilyD/EditCounterOptIn.js

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:WilyD/EditCounterOptIn.js, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ireland–Zambia relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ireland–Zambia relations, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Zambia relations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)`