Revision as of 07:49, 9 July 2016 editAtlantic306 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers154,406 edits →Afd: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:49, 9 July 2016 edit undoAtlantic306 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers154,406 edits →Afd: typoNext edit → | ||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
:{{re|Atlantic306}} Before I provide any response, I'm pinging {{u|SwisterTwister}} here to address your concerns if they would like to. Seems only fair. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | :{{re|Atlantic306}} Before I provide any response, I'm pinging {{u|SwisterTwister}} here to address your concerns if they would like to. Seems only fair. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
::Frankly I'm only commenting here because I'm being asked to since I attempt my best to stay away; FWIW, I am nominating articles that are exactly deletion material and are not convincing of any applicable notability at all. May I note that I should not be scrutinzed simply for being a deletionist.... WP:AGF would apply here also.... ] ] 07:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | ::Frankly I'm only commenting here because I'm being asked to since I attempt my best to stay away; FWIW, I am nominating articles that are exactly deletion material and are not convincing of any applicable notability at all. May I note that I should not be scrutinzed simply for being a deletionist.... WP:AGF would apply here also.... ] ] 07:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::] The problem is your claiming to have done extensive searches which is impossible in the time from one page to the next straight off the new page feed and that gives the impression to other !voters that an extensive search has been done and they do not need to do one themselves which can result in very unfair deletions . I noticed this when pages i'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd.] (]) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | :::] The problem is your claiming to have done extensive searches which is impossible in the time from one page to the next straight off the new page feed and that gives the impression to other !voters that an extensive search has been done and they do not need to do one themselves which can result in very unfair deletions . I noticed this when pages i'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd.] (]) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::<small>{{re|Atlantic306}} You may want to ping the user here; it's unlikely they have this page watchlisted, so they may not see your reply. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)</small> | ::::<small>{{re|Atlantic306}} You may want to ping the user here; it's unlikely they have this page watchlisted, so they may not see your reply. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 07:49, 9 July 2016
This user has been experiencing occasional internet connectivity problems, and may be unable to respond to queries at times. |
This user is busy, and a timely response may not occur at times.
|
This user prefers to communicate on-wiki, rather than by email. |
Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 Threads older than 20 days are typically archived. Some may be archived sooner. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
BSDMS
I deleted a paragraph likely written by an Internet troll regarding how BSDMS became undank while the citation did not corroborate the claim. Might be good to return the page to protected status?--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 02:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not really seeing a reason to protect Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash; it's rather stable and there hasn't really been that much editing going on with it. Protection is typically used to prevent continuous problematic edits from occurring after they have occurred, rather than preventing them from occurring before they occur. North America 05:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
I've noticed you at Afds and have noticed how you keep helping editors with nudges and hints about the right arguments to follow apart from providing links to the right articles to read. Your edit of my references at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith was also appreciated by me. Thanks for all that... Lourdes 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Xender Lourdes: I remember that now. The header2 in the discussion was truncating the indentation of the table of contents on the main AfD log page, because AfD listings are posted with a header3. So, I changed it to header4. Cheers, North America 20:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sputnik Monroe
Thanks for getting the dab page issue resolved. I was about to do that and saw that you're already on top of it! GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- No problemo. Cheers, North America 23:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Hard soda
On 28 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hard soda, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hard soda is a fast-emerging segment in the craft beer industry that realized over one percent of overall beer category sales in the U.S. in May 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hard soda. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hard soda), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Icebar Orlando
On 29 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Icebar Orlando, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Icebar Orlando claims to be the world's largest permanent ice bar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Icebar Orlando. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Icebar Orlando), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Theatre for a New Audience
I'd like to get your thoughts on this article since you worked on it in the past. We've been discussed with the subject themselves (ticket:2015100610022918) about their article. It was deleted for text copyvio from multiple sources (including their own website, which they're willing to license per CC-BY-SA-3.0). I've been scouring previous revisions of the article to try to gauge if we could restore a previous copyvio-free version but I'm having a slightly hard time determining what revision would be best. I'm eyeing this one of your just before a 5k bytes enlargment but later, better revisions might also be workable with some trimming I suppose? I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the assistance. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: I just viewed the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2015 September 30. I am working on entirely other matters at this time, and I don't really feel like becoming involved in all of this at this time, making all of the comparisons that are necessary with the various urls provided in the discussion, etc., which can take significant time. Sorry, North America 23:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News
Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News
Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Misplaced Pages editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<< |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
A revert without due cause
This was an unfounded revert. Trademark registration is not the same as copyright status - the two are entirely separate rights and issues. I've been dealing with copyright images for a very long time and this is clearly a PD-textlogo image per US law. You, and I should have remembered to do it, can add the {{trademark}} template to the freely licensed image which clearly states: These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. Please reinstate my edits. ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Done. You appear to be correct. Sorry, but I was erring on the side of caution, thinking that this could have qualified as copyright infringement. After reading content at various places, such as here and at Commons:Non-copyright restrictions § Trademark law, your edit appears to be in order. Sorry for any hassle this may have created for you. North America 10:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- N.b. I also added the {{Trademark}} template to the page. North America 11:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Thanks for your contributions here and for helping everyone on the project, Keep up the amazing work! :), –Davey2010 12:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
- @Davey2010: Grazie for the brew. Cheers, North America 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome :), Happy editing, –Davey2010 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: No, you're welcome (diff). Cheerioooooooo, North America 03:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome :), Happy editing, –Davey2010 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
mongoose webserver vs mongoose javascript library
hi User:Northamerica1000, i really love persons expanding articles. but i would really appreciate that the expansion remotely meets the topic of the article. the Mongoose (web server) has nothing to do with a javascript library called mongoose. putting a book about a javascript library in there is highly confusing. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- You stripped some valid sources from the article (e.g. diff) after !voting to delete the article at AfD. Removing sources from an article that serve to demonstrate notability while also !voting to delete is rather poor form, and could be interpreted as a biased editing decision to better qualify your !vote at AfD. I restored this source to the article, using it as an inline citation to verify content. North America 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
4th of July
Shoot the works!! | |
Based on your user name, I'm thinking its safe to wish you a fun 4th of July celebration. Not sure how our friends in other countries feel about it but as for me, I've got the beer iced down, and a comfy chair in the bed of the truck to enjoy the show tomorrow night! 🍻 🎉 02:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
- @Atsme: I'll be checking out fireworks on TV tonight, but I may go to a bar later to chill with some locals. Hope you've been doing well, and happy 4th of July. North America 02:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2016)
An answering machine
Hello, Northamerica1000.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Home page • List of aqueducts in the Roman Empire Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions |
---|
Draft:Komal Jha
I believe I have taken your word of caution in adding this post by appending it at the end with - Edit Source !
Thank you for all the contributions ! This discussion thread is closed stating 'Keep' as a decision.
(cur | prev) 22:07, 24 June 2016 JohnCD (talk | contribs) . . (23,301 bytes) (+2,047) . . (→Draft:Komal Jha: Closing debate; result was keep (using User:Doug/closemfd.js)) (undo | thank)
Now, as User:SmokeyJoe mentioned in the same thread, is it appropriate to move it to main article space? Please guide.
Also, about a new article on a different subject, which I want to contribute, should I have to go through the review mechanism or can I publish directly?
Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Ch.th: Yes, the MfD discussion was closed with a keep result, but I have to leave this matter to DGG, the administrator who performed the most recent deletion of the article and also most recently fully protected the page from recreation (see the log page for the article). There are two reasons I cannot unilaterally publish the article: 1) this could potentially be perceived as wheel warring, per the history of the page, and 2) I am involved because I have made contributions to the draft. So, after posting this, I will notify DGG about this discussion and we'll await their response here. North America 03:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you both for all the support and guidance. I shall look forward to it. Also, please let me know as I asked earlier, should I go through AfC reviews for my new articles too or can I directly create and publish them? Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hope DGG will pull out some time from his busy schedule to look in to Draft:Komal Jha and publish/guide as discussed earlier. In the meantime, can I create the other article directly and publish, without AfC review? This is a new article and the subject is on this : Ravi Mooruru. Thannks ! --Ch.th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ch.th: I notified DGG on their talk page about your comment here inre Draft:Komal Jha. Regarding Ravi Mooruru, yes, you can publish an article directly. Just be sure that the subject passes notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, that the article has a credible claim of significance regarding the subject, to prevent it from being tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion, and use reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability and properly verify content. For more general information about publishing articles, check out WP:42. North America 07:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hope DGG will pull out some time from his busy schedule to look in to Draft:Komal Jha and publish/guide as discussed earlier. In the meantime, can I create the other article directly and publish, without AfC review? This is a new article and the subject is on this : Ravi Mooruru. Thannks ! --Ch.th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you both for all the support and guidance. I shall look forward to it. Also, please let me know as I asked earlier, should I go through AfC reviews for my new articles too or can I directly create and publish them? Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Ousterhout AfD
Were you surprised as well that that got called as no consensus? I notice you stayed out of the debate but still tagged a couple of the !votes. It obviously makes no real difference since keep is the default outcome when there's no consensus, but still, I thought this was a poor call. Secondary sources citing primary sources is not a reason to delete and the promotional complaints were before the article got revised. When the WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG exist, you're supposed to keep, no matter what the vote count. When I looked, I realized the admin who closed it doesn't have that much experience. Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Msnicki: inre the AfD discussion, you can always discuss the closure with the closing admin to present them with your take on the matter. North America 02:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I, on the other hand, thing the close was probably in error: it should have been delete, because the references were unreliable and anecdotal-- Allure to show notability of a surgeon? But rather than appealing -- ot renominating as can be done almost immediately after a no-consensus close, I'm just fixing the article as best I can. Menicki. eight years of experience at Deletion Review (which somewhat to my amazement actually adds up to over a thousand reviews I've watched or commented in) has me firmly convinced that regardless of what one thinks should have happened, it is almost never worthwhile to appeal a no-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any point to DRV'ing a no consensus close, either. It's also not usually worth discussing with the closing admin unless you're intending to DRV them. No one ever changes their close just because you ask; they usually just double down. Also, "fixing the article" does not mean deleting it sentence-by-sentence because you weren't able to delete it all at once. Msnicki (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Msnicki, I've changed closes. Admins vary. The point of discussing it is that you will perhaps be satisfied by the explanation--abouth alf the time, people are. Of course, not all admins do give detailed explanations on request as they ought to.
- Since you reverted my changes on Ousterhout, I assume the your last sentence refers to that; we can discuss why on the talk p. sentence by sentence . My reaction is not trying to remove it sentence by sentence, though I know some people have done that at times; I meant what I said-- that since we're keeping it, I'm trying to improve it by removing the weak points, as for any article. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any point to DRV'ing a no consensus close, either. It's also not usually worth discussing with the closing admin unless you're intending to DRV them. No one ever changes their close just because you ask; they usually just double down. Also, "fixing the article" does not mean deleting it sentence-by-sentence because you weren't able to delete it all at once. Msnicki (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll think about approaching her. If you're sincere about improving an article, one of the best ways is to look for sources. In fact, it's something you're supposed to do in good faith at every AfD, since the sources merely need to exist, not actually be cited to establish notability. I try to do that even when I hate the subject and I think you'll notice I change my !votes pretty routinely when others discover sources, again, even if I personally hate the article. I think you could have done better this time.
- The sources establish that he invented facial feminization surgery (FFS) but I'm not convinced you appreciate the significance of that, so that may be a reason you're skeptical of the whole article as promotional. The significance is that he was literally the first surgeon to figure out how to change a male face into a female face, all of it without visible scars. (All of the jaw work was done via incisions inside the mouth.) Before that, there was simply no one who knew how to do this and trans people got nose jobs and cheek implants that did not fool anyone. To make an analogy, to the trans community, this is like the first guy to figure out how to do a heart transplant or make a working light bulb. It meant you actually could change the gender people saw you as, without any makeup. What wasn't possible became possible.
- Naturally, we don't cite any of this in a BLP, but here is one of the earliest personal accounts, from 18 years ago, several years before the term FFS had been invented, that might help you understand how revolutionary and how significant this was at the time. Nicole (today an EE lecturer ) suggested the lip shortening, which Ousterhout then began doing on all his later patients. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Iam very much aware of the importance. The technique should be discussed in detail, at the page on it. What you are saying is not that he invented it, but that he greatly improved it. There's a difference. If people had been doing it before, but less successfully, he didn't invent the idea. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to expand the article, using good sources, primarily medical reviews that meet WP:RSMed. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is absolutely positively NOT what I said! I thought I was so clear about that that I am absolutely stunned by your claim. I said he invented facial feminization because that is what he did. Before Ousterhout, there was no such thing as facial feminization. It was not merely that we did not have a name for it or that it wasn't very good and that he improved it. It simply did not exist.
- When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Most plastic surgeons trans people might have approached before Ousterhout would have been cosmetic surgeons who did only soft tissue work, as described at Plastic surgery#Cosmetic surgery. They no idea how to feminize a face. If they had, they'd have realized they weren't prepared to do the serious bony work required to change a male skull into female skull. So they did what they knew how to do, nose jobs and cheek implants, which didn't fool anyone. What Ousterhout did was realize that the bony structure of the face had to change, especially the jaw, the brow bossing and the forehead, which other surgeons simply never touched. He figured out how they would have to change and he figured out how to do it. The jaw was especially problematic because most plastic surgeons are not dentists or oral surgeons and they don't know how to work on the jaw without risking serious nerve damage. Ousterhout could do this because he is also a dentist.
- This is his invention based on his research. So far as I know, the lip shortening is the only procedure in the mix that was not entirely Ousterhout's idea. And even that, while suggested by a patient, was his idea how to do it. (Other plastic surgeons had sometimes tried to lift or give greater fullness to the upper lip with an incision at the lip line, rolling the lip up, leaving an often extremely visible scar and an odd-looking lip.) Every surgeon who now does FFS (and there are only 12) has copied what Ousterhout invented as a basic set of procedures. This is why some reasonable discussion of what he has invented belongs in the article about him. It would be like having an article on Thomas Edison that doesn't discuss how he invented the light bulb. Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
List of street foods
Hello! Hey, what do you think about the idea of table-izing the List of street foods article, using a format similar to that of List of regional dishes of the United States? So the table columns would be image, name, associated region, and description. (I would vote for having one long table, instead of breaking it into multiple tables by type of food.) — Mudwater 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mudwater: Sounds good to me, as per the example below (same format as List of regional dishes of the United States). I think it looks fly with the image first. One long list if fine by me. Hey, I have a wiki-friend who may be able to easily convert the content into table format, per a technique she has that does not require laboriously going through every entry manually, so pinging Anna Frodesiak here to see if she has time to pitch in. North America 01:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do it right now. I have a bit of time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: Wow, thanks. Instant response. Pinging Mudwater to let them know, so they don't do the long-form work. Anna's tablefication is supreme! North America 01:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do it right now. I have a bit of time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good! — Mudwater 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go:
Talk:Regional street food#Conversion to table formatTalk:List of street foods#Conversion to table format. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)- Fixed link above, per request here. North America 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go:
- Sounds good! — Mudwater 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of street foods
This is gonna be great. Here's my attempt at starting the table manually, using the first three entries in the current list, with some added images and descriptions:
Image | Name | Associated region | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Acarajé | Brazil | A dish made from peeled beans formed into a ball and then deep-fried in dendê (palm oil) | |
Aloo Chaat | Northern India and Pakistan | Prepared by frying potatoes in oil and adding spices and chutney | |
Aloo tikki | Northern India and Pakistan | A snack made out of boiled potatoes, onions and various spices |
References
- The World's Best Street Food: Where to Find It and How to Make It. Lonely Planet Publications. 2012. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-74321-664-4. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
- Jain, Manjula (February 17, 2015). "Aloo Chaat (Spicy Potato Snack)", Manjula's Kitchen. Retrieved July 7, 2016.
- Wickramasinghe, P.; Lowe, J.; Rajah, C.S.; Benson, A. (2005). Food of India. Food of the World S. Murdoch Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-74045-472-8. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
— Mudwater 01:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Anna Frodesiak has put a revised table on the article talk page, with the images in column one. So, that's great. But I can't figure out how to comment further in that talk page section, or to get to the new version of the table. I'm confused, and also going to bed. Could you please work with her to get the updated table into the article, with the images in the first column? Thanks! "P.S." After that it might be best to delete the two collapsed tables from the talk page, for technical reasons. — Mudwater 02:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- N.b. Being discussed at Talk:List of street foods. North America 02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
About List of Rullers of the Philippines
- I just Need help to review the Deletion tag by User:Riohondo on the List of Rullers of the Philippines since it was tagged on deletion list since 6th of July , but since you reviewed the article can how can i add supplemental references to avoid deletion of an article?
- good day! thank you. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
- Hi Philipandrew2: I haven't reviewed or contributed to the List of rulers of the Philippines article (Revision history) or its talk page (Revision history) at all. Perhaps you are confusing me with another user? In terms of sources, try links from these searches below. You can cite any sources you find within the AfD discussion itself. North America 07:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Find sources notice Template:Find sources notice
Afd
Hi, expect youve noticed that today and yesterday SwisterTister is swamping AFDs. He seems to be taking them straight off the new page feed and afding them within a few seconds and claiming to have done extensive searches, some are bad articles but others are not.You can see his contribs how fast he's nominating. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Atlantic306: Before I provide any response, I'm pinging SwisterTwister here to address your concerns if they would like to. Seems only fair. North America 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm only commenting here because I'm being asked to since I attempt my best to stay away; FWIW, I am nominating articles that are exactly deletion material and are not convincing of any applicable notability at all. May I note that I should not be scrutinzed simply for being a deletionist.... WP:AGF would apply here also.... SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:SwisterTwister The problem is your claiming to have done extensive searches which is impossible in the time from one page to the next straight off the new page feed and that gives the impression to other !voters that an extensive search has been done and they do not need to do one themselves which can result in very unfair deletions . I noticed this when pages i'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd.Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Atlantic306: You may want to ping the user here; it's unlikely they have this page watchlisted, so they may not see your reply. North America 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:SwisterTwister The problem is your claiming to have done extensive searches which is impossible in the time from one page to the next straight off the new page feed and that gives the impression to other !voters that an extensive search has been done and they do not need to do one themselves which can result in very unfair deletions . I noticed this when pages i'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd.Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm only commenting here because I'm being asked to since I attempt my best to stay away; FWIW, I am nominating articles that are exactly deletion material and are not convincing of any applicable notability at all. May I note that I should not be scrutinzed simply for being a deletionist.... WP:AGF would apply here also.... SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)