I suspect we may have both been working behind the scenes on the Sir Edward Peel article and are waiting to be allowed to edit it. I have a draft here, hidden at present to avoid linkbacks. Will it be OK if I put it in place as soon as the DRV closes? BTW, I think the present title may be OK to disambiguate from Edward Peel but I'm not fussed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. Or Edward Peel (big-game fisherman)? Thincat ( talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, You have removed the deletion tag in Koridor coal mine. I may have mistaken when I chose G1. But I am not sure which tag should I use. The problem is that the article refers to a nonexistent mine and the so-called reference is not about a Koridor coal mine. Maybe you can be kind enough to suggest a more appropriate tag. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You reverted my BLPROD on the article because you said it has a reference. If you check the reference (Google Translate works pretty well), you'll see it does not cover any of the personal information of the individual in question. Just his conviction, and sparse info at that. -- Kimon talk 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I can see that you previously removed a deletion template from the page 2004-05 Taça de Portugal. Added the template again with reasons why the article should be deleted: no references, incomplete, some wrong information, the name of the article is misspelled. I have created a replacement page entitled 2004–05 Taça de Portugal, which is referenced and complete.
User talk:Alexgreene87, 10 July 2013, 13:37 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the prod. The article was nominated for AfD as being the same as any other ball in any American city. That is complete nonsense. SL93 ( talk) 04:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is not absolute, the band's notability is weak as noted by the discussion. The discussion itself can hardly be considered significant with the 4 users who commented? The WP:BAND Notability guideline does not mandate that an article be kept if it meets a bullet point, it indicates that the subject MAY be notable. The band is inactive, achieved no standard of notability other than being signed. The General guideline states that significant independent coverage is required. it doesn't exist in this case. WP:NTEMP could also be interpreted to apply to the subject. Even if the band became notable when it signed with a label, it has not remained so. "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion,". Thoughts? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 01:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The key reason I became an admin , as I said back at my RfA, was to check speedy deleted articles. Any you think need checking, ask me, on wiki or by email. Do you want me to go thru your deleted contribution history and check all those you questioned? (btw, why just question, when you can remove the speedy tag yourself?) DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your removing the db-ar10 notice, please note that this article was created to bolster a POV that the people who entered Assam were Aryans, which is discussed here: Talk:Aryan_migration_to_Assam#Requested_move. Is this article about a single tribe, or multiple tribes not in List of Rigvedic tribes? Chaipau ( talk) 17:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, as to Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya, the book still does not fulfill notability guidelines for books, in the sense that it has not been shown to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". Consequently, your removal of PROD tags was incorrect. Additionally, this is not an English-language book not has it been translated into English as far as I know - little chances are there that an English speaker would ever look up an encyclopaedia for this title. Hence, I insist that the book non-notable on English Wikipedia (it might warrant an entry on Hindi wiki, though). Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. On these two edits ( 1 & 2), I thought that giving the reason is optional. Can I PROD them again, this time with reason? Farhikht ( talk) 09:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
When you responded to User:Tertulius and wrote "The sources that have been added to the article are this one apparently published by the director of this film..." you made it appear that you believe Portugese author José de Matos-Cruz and filmmaker Ricardo Costa are the same person. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Per your AfD comment, that is a resource of which I was not aware. Do you know if there is a list of citation resources for certain areas anywhere on WP, and if not, is there any value in creating one? I can see how it would make the AfD process more efficient, either by allowing for very specific statements regarding a lack of meeting notability criteria per X, Y, and Z, or being a way to establish notability before said article even gets to AfD (and avoiding WP:HEY). MSJapan ( talk) 04:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for at least partially alleviating my concern. Now, I'd like your opinion; one of the founders is Rachel Collier. Given the existence of Rachel K Collier; is this Rachel Collier notable for something else (she currently falls foul of WP:1EVENT) or should I simply carve a disambiguation page out of it?-- Laun chba ller 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Taxi to L.A. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive 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.
ModelUN (
talk) 02:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Camellia Plant ( talk · contribs) killed the PROD you endorsed at Banded speed cosmology. I've opened an AFD for it that you may want to comment on. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
You contested my PROD on Evixion. Why would you say that the film passes WP:MOVIE?
ModelUN ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evixion 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/Evixion 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. ModelUN ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I thank you for the precisions you came with in this article though I reverted them so as to provide more references claiming that he is the youngest journalist of the country. I had a talk with other wiki admins and they seem to accept it and approve it as a secondary source. -- Wikifan115 ( talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw you removed a Prod blp from Hubert Gatignon, saying it has a reference. I see one external link and no references. Do external links count as references for purposes of that? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Phil. Yesterday you removed a prod tag from this non-English article saying that there was no reason to depart from our practice of allowing two weeks for translation. You might have missed though that this article has been sitting at WP:PNT since 5 July, so time's really up now. Please restore the prod or we would have to go through an unnecessarily bureaucratic AFD. De728631 ( talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to indicate what the copyvio was from, but it was easy enough to find, so I specified where and deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You are specially invitation to join WikiProject India. This is the template we generally copy paste:
Now,
Please let me if you have any question or comment. I am watching this page. I'll hope you'll consider joining our WikiProjects. --
Tito☸
Dutta 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Makki di Roti Sarson da saag for you | ||
Look, here I have brought
Makki di roti with
Sarson da saag for you. Makki di roti is bread made from
corn flour and Sarson da saag is a curry made from
mustard leaves with spices. Thank you.
Tito☸
Dutta 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
I noticed you removed the PRODs on Suprobhat Bangladesh and Ekobingsho. I don't see anything in the articles themselves that indicates their notability. Are you seeing something in them I'm not, or do you recognize them as notable from outside what their article says? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcello Boldrini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer ( 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) 12:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I don't often look at my talk page, hence the long delay in hearing from me.
As I understand it, there are several published articles that reference Golly. Is that your suggestion? How should such references be handled?
Regarding this - I described it as in the Unite States as the (only) category was Category:Recording studios in the United States. Giant Snowman 08:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
There were several comments made on the Talk:Stalking#Removal_of_properly_sourced_information section that amounted to personal attacks on both of us by editor Damenthesis (apparently by his registered account and an unregistered URL) back in April that I think would be appropriate to remove before the section is eventually archived- and probably the part of our responses that dignify them. Let me know what you think, it's not high on my priority list but I think it should be done. Batvette ( talk) 03:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful edit summary here. Would you consider this article (or any equivalent) eligible for A7 if the league was left out of the into: Jane Doe is a footballer who plays as a midfielder for "club"? Or would the same indication of importance apply, if that was the same club that played in the same league? Cheers Mentoz86 ( talk) 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Phil, I have left a note for you on the DoRALGAS talk page, would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Clare.
Clare. ( talk) 12:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If there has already been discussion on deleting the Accismus article, why does it not appear on its Talk page? And where is the discussion? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thx. Staszek Lem seems to have taken the article in hand so I'll hold off for a while to see if the article develops into something less dictionary-like. My incoherence arose from sitting at a cramped table in a noisy Cretan hotel lobby. While it's an ideal place to contemplate figures of Greek rhetoric, it's not good for concentration! Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 07:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Phil, I placed a delete banner on MS Mode for one primary reason, namely that it is almost completely composed of unverified and unverifiable assertions. I don't believe it can be improved by simply editing it. In order to comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, you would have to gut it completely.
The secondary reason is the bad grammer, but I wouldn't want to correct it for fear that I might be seen to be supporting or accepting any of the prose.
Hope this helps, I realise it's not exactly NPOV on my part, but none the less, the article is an ugly pollution in Wikipedia.. Dutchdavey ( talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)