Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 7 March 2014

User:Chetblong/bar

Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I don't understand

You posted a message on my wall and deleted a page I had created. I don't want to start an argument, I just want to list a few points that confuse me.

1. Time:

You deleted it immediately, you should've given me 72 hours at most, and 2 hours at least.

2. Rule Breaking:

I don't know what rules I broke, I looked at the guidelines and found nothing wrong. I provided a source, used a significant individual and wrote a fairly decent page. It needed improvement, and I had marked it as stub.

So, can you explain what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rim of the Sky (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no credible claim of significance in the article. As such it was immediately deletable per WP:CSD#A7. If you wish to re-create an article that has a credibe claim of significance, then please feel free to do so. But being "well known" is not one, otherwise we'd have millions of articles about non-notable people. Lastly, the source you had on the article was a primary source. Please review WP:RS for more information on what is considered a reliable source. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I still think my source is reliable. It's on Valve's official website telling you enough info for what was on the page. It may have been hard to find, but I can't do anything about it. You just have to scroll down and see. Still, I do appreciate that you responded and I can respect that you're only doing your job. ☞ Яǐɱ

18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hi Coffee, You correctly deleted a page that I had started due to absence of any references. I think I am now ready to add references. Do I simply create the page again or has there a specific process I need to follow to resurrect the original article? Regards, AS_Sydney (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Calrification

Can you please explain to me how my article on PiVi & Co is advertising? I really don't want to be banned and this happened to an earlier article that I had posted, "Hiddenapp" that is now deleted.

TheInformativePanda (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If an article exists solely to promote a non-notable product, business, service, etc... then it is an advertisement. This shouldn't be as hard to understand as you're making it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

There's a lot of removal of sourced material on the Marlon Brando article by IP's going on, and I would very much like it to stop. Maybe a semi-protection would be helpful? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Demolished buildings and structures in the United States by state

The Category:Demolished buildings and structures in the United States by state currently has only 9 of the 50 states with their own categories. I was going to start creating some of the others, until I saw that they had already been created and deleted. Apparently it was part of a mass deletion of content added by a banned user. If so, would it be okay for me to go ahead and create those categories again? Thanks! Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Dafoeberezin3494: Yes, as long as you feel those categories are necessary, do as you please. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Chhavi Leekha

“Dear Chet B. Long,

This message is with reference to deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/Chhavi_leekha wiki page. On checking the deletion summary we found that this page has been deleted by you immediately and without discussion. We also noticed that this page has been considered under Orphaned articles category.

However, we tried to figure out the exact reason of It but couldn’t crack the complexity of the process. It would be really great if you can help us restore the page and guide us to make it more authenticated to avoid any further damage.

Looking forward to you support.”

Regards

Pankaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomnzap (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Zoomnzap - Two things: 1. Who is "us"? 2. The reason for the deletion (which can be found at the proper spelling Chhavi Leekha) is as follows: "Expired WP:PROD, concern was: Non-notable - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only notability claim is a one-off internal award issued by her own employer and reported in press release format in a trade magazine.". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have reason to believe the user here is the same person as User:MalleusMaleficarum1486 who has already been banned from[REDACTED] by you. I am almost 100% percent certain of this based on location, edits, and an off-wiki source I sadly cannot disclose. Would you mind looking into this before he causes more disruption and edit warring, like he is doing right now? Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry to bother you again but I thought it would be best to bring this to your attention swiftly. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy and Incel

Coffee, per

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination), and
• this talk page discussion,

Mythic Writerlord has continued to remove the merged content without consensus. Mythic Writerlord's failure to respect consensus brings up another, rather unfortunate matter in all of this-- your block of MalleusMaleficarum1486. In trying to deal with these two editors (Malleus and Mythic), my experience with Malleus was that as soon as he understood the relevant Misplaced Pages policy, he refrained from the problematic matters. I was surprised that, as an admin involved in the AFD close, you blocked him several days after his last offense, and then that, as the blocking admin, you also refused his block review. It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that you should have enlisted a) another admin for the original block (which I disagreed with, as that editor was sincerely trying to learn and respect Wiki policies), and b) allowed an independent editor to review your block. At any rate, the current issue is that Mythic Writerlord-- who was curiously not blocked while engaging in worse behaviors-- continues to disrespect your close of the AFD and the merged content. So, there's a jolly mess there that I'm hoping you'll sort out. From the post above, it's apparent that Mythic has some sort of pony in this race ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, today I removed it only once and after that another user removed it another two times. This he did based on a discussion on the celibacy page. I will however promise not to get involved in the editing of that page anymore from now on. And if I caused any disruption I am truly sorry for doing so. I never intended any harm or offense and if I did cause any disruption I am deeply sorry for doing so. It will not happen again. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: I have already made it abundantly clear on several occassions today that I will no longer participate in this discussion, and that I respect the decision made in the AfD back in January. There really is nothing more to say. I made a single edit on the celibacy page and was then accussed of "edit warring" by SandyGeorgia, which is absolutely ridiculous and incorrect. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. The person I meant edit warring on the Sandy Georgia page is Andrey Rublyov, who now made his third revert in 24 hour, not Mythic . I wanted to find some solution and I wished I could have stopped this edit war by coming to some kind of solution, before it went too long. Maybe I should have warned him instead. Please take a look at our discussion at Celibacy talk page, and if it is possible to merge this into Sexual frustration, for example. Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An additional curiosity just popped on my watchlist ... both Mythic Writerlord and Turris Davidica attempting to speedy delete Involuntary celibacy over the redirect. Perhaps that page needs protection? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)