User talk:Vacation9/Archives/2012/November

A question

Why did you just put that warning on my talk page? MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:3rr about reverting someone's edits on one page more than three times in a 24 hour period. You violated this rule, and if you continue to, you may be warned again. Vacation9 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Madguy asked me to comment on this. Your warning was not appropriate, because his reverts were edits like this - reverts of obvious vandalism, which is a listed exception to 3RR, see WP:NOT3RR #4. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this clause. I will take this into account in the future. Vacation9 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Vacation9, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I find STiki VERY easy to use and much easier than manual page patrolling. Great job! Vacation9 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:STiki

I want to use STiki for reverting Vandalism, But How the way to use it please tell me, I already have visited the page Wikipedia:STiki But I didn't get to know the usage of it, Thank You Greatuser (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. First, you need to obtain permission for using STiki. This can be done in one of three ways:

• Obtaining Rollback permission (which it seems won't happen soon)
• Making over 1000 to the main article namespace
• Recieving special permission at the STiki talk page

After this, you can log in and the interface is extremely simple. You are shown an edit that could be vandalism, and you can:

• Revert it as Vandalism
• Revert it as a good faith edit
• Pass and let other STikiers decide
• Flag it as innocent (not vandalism and shouldn't be reverted) and move on

I hope this helped you, and happy editing! Vacation9 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I Know the rules, I want to know its usage, I want to use STiki because i don't own Rollback Rights Greatuser (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Above I said how the interface works. If you want to use STiki without rollback or 1000 edits, you can apply at the STiki talk page. Happy editing!Vacation9 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

PERM

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but please remember that according or not according user rights at WP:PERM is an admin decision. These pages are watched daily by admins and there are no backlogs. Comments by other users are generally not necessary because admins will make all the checks again anyway, and have more tools to do so. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand, however I wanted to help the admins and speed up the process. I will take this in mind in the future however. Vacation9 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
• Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Suppression requests

Hi there. Thanks for filing those suppression requests re. the article feedback function. Unfortunately, most of them didn't really qualify for suppression, per policy and should be just fine just revdel'd. Thanks for letting us know, though, as it's best to err on the safe side! - Alison ^❤ 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I respect your decision, however why exactly did they not? A lot of the Barack Obama attacks made defamatory comments about him, which qualify under the policies. Could you explain your decision more? Thank you! Vacation9 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything that could reasonably be considered defamatory in those comments. It's perfectly fine to just have it revdel'd, IMO. Comments like 'zOMG Hussein is a Muslim name' and 'he needs to be more white', obnoxious that they may be, don't constitute defamation (which has a specific legal definition) - Alison ^❤ 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Vacation9 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Donald Duck

Hello Vacation9! Thank you for your contributions. I recently noticed your good faith revert on Donald Duck. The discussion was already done due to the discussion presented to the article's talk page. Please review first the talk before reverting something. If you have questions, please approach me through my talk. Thank you and have a nice day! Mediran ^t|c 01:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Vacation9 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding reverted edit

Can you please explain how my edit to Jimmy Savile's information on the List of Mensans page constitutes vandalism? I was only trying to update it in relation to the sex abuse revelations, which I believe is certainly a relevant piece of information to have there as he is probably known for that above anything else nowadays.

Please provide a reliable source for this. It is a probable violation of Wikipedia's BLP violation and an unsourced violation like this raises a giant red flag. Happy editing! Vacation9 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I have added two sources now. I hope they are satisfactory, if not I can find plenty more.

Thank you! Happy editing, and please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~! Vacation9 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hello! You undid my edit on Animelo Summer Live page as not being constructive. I want to let you know that I simply corrected a few mistakes that were on the page. Matteas (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you 94.112.236.188? If so, you changed a link to a non-existant page, which appeared to me as vandalism. Happy editing! Vacation9 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You were faster than me and reverted the edit before I could change the title so that it would link to its corresponding page. Thanks for reverting the reversion. Matteas (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thank you! Vacation9 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You also reverted by edit on Valentino as not being constructive but I was correcting an error. You don't seem to know the difference between Missoni and M Missoni their (much) less expensive diffusion line.

Sorry about that, the edit to me simply appeared as addition of a random character. I don't exactly know why, as now I can see it is an obvious innocent edit. Vacation9 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Vacation9! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kitty!

"Wikilove," to me, just sounds like some sort of perverse online sex community.

Hello. Thanks for your response concerning the late Hello, Kitty! page and the 'personal attacks' that may have ensued on said talk page. As you can see on the accompanying flowchart, which I very rigorously and thoroughly consulted, I was instructed to quote "shower them with WikiLove" at multiple steps in the process. This was a concern to me; I'm not proficient enough in WikiSlang to know what WikiLove is, but frankly 'showering' my fellow editors in any sort just sounds dirty and, quite honestly, displeasing.

With that in mind, I feel that consensus concerning the fate of Hello, Kitty! was never adequately achieved, and thus I would like to commence the process of reinstating the page therein (provided that this process does not involve showering my online comrades with various foreign concepts as well).

Eagerly awaiting your response, Bubsty (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilove can be seen by using the heart at the top right menu of a user talk page. You can give them various types of thanks and welcomes. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. I can help with reinstating the page later, as I am extremely busy right now. Vacation9 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back. If you want to restore your deleted page, see Wikipedia:Deletion_Review for instructions and list it there, with a good reason for restoration. Glad to help! Vacation9 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meningitis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Meningitis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tyson and rape conviciton

Not sure why you are removing the reference to the Tyson rape conviction - it did happen and it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain696 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to be on the safe side I reverted a likely BLP violation that was unreferenced. Feel free to add it back with a reliable source. Vacation^nine 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Trigun page rollback

I received a message saying you rolled back my edit because it wasn't constructive. All I did was change the phrase

"Like Vash, he is a sentient plant created by humans"

to

"Like Vash, he is a sentient power plant created by humans"

because the character in question is in fact a power source, not a vegetable and the article was misleading. When they dubbed the Trigun anime into English, they always used the word "plant" by itself but the meaning is quite clear from the show.

Is it alright if I change it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.205.19 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It appeared to me as vandalism. Vacation^nine 01:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

ah, my bad, I don't have too much experience editing wikipedia. I have redone the edit and commented it properly this time. You can go ahead and delete this when you get it.

ANI tag

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Really not a very good tag. Sorry. -- :- ) Don 00:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by not a very good tag, but the tag was incorrect. This tag doesn't apply to me because:

1. I wasn't involved in the first place, while I voted on the AfD I didn't revert your edits (only [1] and [2])
2. As a commenter said ([3]) a nomination for deletion counts as your vote. You also made rude remarks in your edit summary. ([4]) Vacation^nine 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that when I place the tag, it made no header, nothing, just a sentence to I added header, sign, etc. You're right, I was rude and upset at the time. Sorry. -- :- ) Don 17:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Happy editing! Vacation^nine 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ellse Supermann

No sense of humour. I didn't have to drop one single letter.--217.250.251.205 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have a sense of humour, but why should I tolerate obvious BLP violations? Vacation^nine 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisting

Hey Vacation9, I just wanted to let you know that I undid your relisting of this AfD because I did earlier today...granted that the UTC date is different, but I did it roughly four hours prior to you; thus, I don't believe it needs to be relisted again. Thanks. Go Phightins! 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. It was still in the log and I didn't notice the date. Thanks for letting me know! Vacation^nine 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem; just a heads up. Go Phightins! 00:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisted, Why?

WP:RELIST

The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted.

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.

That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

As you can see relisting is only necessary when you are genuinely confused about what the consensus is. For gathering the sense of consensus is it not enough that the article has been nominated twice (not so long ago) and was kept both the times? (not in search of an answer it was rhetorical) And that it got more keep-comments than delete-comments this time also?

Also relisting has something to do with the lack of comments that discuss policies. I have not seen even many comments here that lacked mentions of policies and guidelines directly or indirectly. The same way we tend frown upon creation of articles that are previously deleted through AFD, one ought to consider nominating an article every now and then based on personal biases as disruptive, especially when it has been kept by the community-consensus not once, but twice. Please from now onwards try to go through all the versions of AFD discussion if you're confused about the consensus of the community before relisting a redundant 3rd nomination of a well sourced and notable topic. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the AfD in question? I do try to follow the WP:RELIST policies whenever possible. Vacation^nine 16:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I had the same question, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden (3rd nomination). I think Mr T was referring to that discussion also. Why was it relisted? It was the third nomination, with the same couple of editors involved as last time, and the same incorrect arguments as they previously used. First Light (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could see the arguments from both sides. Also see that the second nom was relisted after a similar situation to the one in question. I thought the discussion might benefit from a couple extra opinions. However I do see your point. Wikipedia operates with consensus, and not voting however, and these cases are usually relisted if they are close, correct? I agree in this case it might have been a keep, but depending on the closer it could have also been a relist. Vacation^nine 16:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing it more, I agree it should have been keep. I don't know why I didn't notice the falsity of the Delete voter's arguments. Sorry about that! Vacation^nine 16:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. thanks for the {{tb}}. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There was another recent 'relist' that was based on far less evidence than this one, by an administrator yet. So you aren't completely off base. But this one has been discussed ad infinitum, thus my question. Your willingness to do AfD closes and relists is admirable, since it does attract attention like ours :-). First Light (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I like dealing with backlogs where Admin privlidges aren't required. Vacation^nine 18:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Keep up the good work! You're approaching 3,000 edits. Cheers, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacation^nine 17:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Adminship and content work

Looks like tripleB got to you before me. Is there still anything that you need to know or ask me about? Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. In what areas should I focus my efforts, and what policies should I study more deeply? Anything you have noticed I need to improve on? Thanks again! Vacation^nine 16:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No need of any talkbacks; I always watch pages of the editors who are potential future admins :) Give me one day to go through your editing and I'll be right back here as soon as possible. Thanks. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your time! Vacation^nine 00:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Going through your contributions, I found loads of reverts and everything looked great within it. I'm really impressed with that hard work. You've been also dealing with edit request on talks of articles which I feel is a nicer thing to do. Your CSD log too looks okay; it is not bad but your success rate can be improved and I haven't calculated but try to keep it 95+ minimum or else editors may take it into account after months of CSD work (I trust that you'll pull it over 95 in few weeks or some after looking at your tireless work now). That was the bright side and now here are few flaws that I cite. You have worked on one article which you nominated for GA on the day you started editing and it was rushed, way too rushed. Even if it was ready for GA, I won't credit an editor for successfully nominating an article but for successfully improving an article to GA standard. In my new start I did exactly the same and I nominated 3-4 articles for GA and all of them failed. If they would pass, I'd be happy but I certainly can't be given any credit for that article. I realized it and now, I have 7 GAs and 4 pending nominations :) (I've 100+ edits on each of it). The article you want to bring up to GAC has less than 25 edits by you and most of them are minor fixes (if I'm not mistaken). Yes, it is good that you are willing but there is lack of work. If you actually wan't to have the credits for getting a GA, at least, try and get 50+ edits on the article (no, not minor ones; e.g., I added about 144 refs to Kerala, c/ed throughout and fixed MoS issues in less than a week). It really isn't as tough as it looks if you really want to achieve a GA. There is no trouble whatsoever if you don't work like me because it'd really burn you out. All I'm saying is get good amount of 50+ edits on any article so that it makes a difference and really improves the article to GA standard (see this).

Now something important: your work at AfDs. Its good to see you taking part there but I fear that it is something that is being done in a bit hurry. On November 4 2012, you !voted in approximately 20 AfDs or a bit less. The issue that was created is that all of your !votes were either like "per nom" or "not notable" and were 85% similar to what other users had already been debating previously on the AfD page (It is not at all a bad thing but if you do such work in mass, it'll look like you just figured out the possible outcome from the other votes on the page and got down your own). I also saw that at one time you made 10+ !votes in a period of about 1 hour or some which were really of less words (every vote on 4th was like that): (longest one of yours). I saw this pattern getting continued some other day as well. I thought of it being an issue but later on I saw this and I realized that you are improving. I used to do !voting in mass though my rationals would have been longer. Even if not intended, editors may question ones intentions and think that one is doing this just to gather a good track of AfD votes (I've been told this by an admin via emails when he noticed similar activity of mine to that of yours).

Please don't feel any stress and please don't be discouraged. Don't slow down anything but from this, all I'm asking for is to weight in at AfDs a bit more and not to rush there. Thats the only minor issue that I cite. Quality is important than quantity :) Overall, you are an asset to our community and are one of my favorite editors around. Just be careful while !voting at AfDs and focus little bit more in the main space. You are doing great and I'd love to work with you someday. Continue this tempo and according to me you'll surely be an admin after you get experience of 10-11 months. I'd love to be your co-nomer or nomer for your RfA in future. Is there anything I can do for you?...I'm just a click away. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for taking the time and writing this incredible review! Thank you for the complements about CSD and my reverts, I have worked hard on those. I agree I need to improve a bit on CSD accuracy. Also thanks for the AfD advice. I'll try to explain my vote more and make a contribution rather than just voting like the crowd. I have tried to do this but maybe not to much success. I'll also try to contribute more to articles I want to be GA. Again, thank you so much for the review! Vacation^nine 12:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy deletions

Fernand Ansseau and Franz Philipp shouldn't have been tagged for speedy, regardless of the fact that they were in a language other than English. When doing NPP you need to be more careful and pace yourself. There is no rush. Do a quick Google search on what you're looking at - 9 out of 10 times sure, it will be a speedy. But we can't scare people away because we screw up the 1%. No biggie, it happened to me a few times at first. Just be more careful. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For Franz Philipp, A2 did apply. It was a foreign language article that existed at de:Franz Philipp. For Fernand Ansseau, the subject was on the verge of being notable or not but notable or not was a copyvio. Why do you think these didn't apply? Vacation^nine 03:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

NPP is not about deleting stuff, it's about finding reasons for keeping it. §FreeRangeFrog 03:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But both of the articles directly violated Wikipedia policies at the time of tagging. Vacation^nine 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That an article is written in German isn't much of a "violation". (That it was copied from the German wiki is not a violation, if attribution is given.) It's rather an invitation to increase our own coverage. A formalist attitude on NPP is no help to the project. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:A2. It, at the time of tagging, was a direct violation of A2. Vacation^nine 12:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure followed by copy and paste

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Civil War bibliography
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the American Civil War

Don't do that. It's wrong. The page isn't "new" merely for being renamed mid-discussion. Just change the article links in the AFD discussion to point to the renamed article, noting the old name. It's simple WikiGnoming, and we don't end up with an AFD discussion where it looks like you've nominated an article for deletion and forged a whole load of discussion by other people. Uncle G (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't really know what to do here. Someone reccomended moving the previous AfD history to the current, which I did. I'll do this in the future. Vacation^nine 12:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NAC

Hi mate, I noticed you non-admin closed the AFD for 4G wifi as "speedy-deleted but the page has not actually been deleted. The article in question still has it's AFD tag and your original speedy nomination has been removed. You might want to consider reverting your NAC so that the AFD can be closed by an admin. Otherwise the article might remain in place (not deleted). Stalwart111 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's weird. I swear it was speedily deleted, and that was why I closed it. Anthony Appleyard must have changed his mind and undone the speedy. Anyways, I undid my close. Thanks for letting me know! Vacation^nine 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vacation is right TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely, and yet it's still there. Wonder what's going on? Stalwart111 03:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

External link on my talk page that you removed

Hey, thanks for reverting those edits on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know that it wasn't spam, but rather a message from a disruptive editor that keeps vandalising one of my watched articles. Still, I would've removed it myself anyway, so thanks for saving me the time :) Cheers! Indrek (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Always willing to help out! Thanks! Vacation^nine 12:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Another one...

Twice in one week! Promise I'm not Wikistalking you!

You just re-listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twibanire Esterification but the author in question has agreed that the article should be userfied (which has been done). There really isn't any way for the article to be kept in the main article space if the author has accepted it is not yet up to WP standards. Also no need to pile on the inevitable "delete" votes just to make a point. Any chance you could close it instead? (I'm not an admin, nor am I uninvolved). Cheers, Stalwart111 03:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fail... just realised you're not an admin either and this will require deletion. Ha ha. I will bother an admin. Stalwart111 03:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realise that Mgyannick was the creator. Feel free to ask an admin to revert my relist. Vacation^nine 12:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Without going into the history (as opposed to just the AFD) there's no way you could have known the background. All good. I moved to close instead - rather than canvas specific admins to close it. Stalwart111 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Diamonds World Tour AfD

You closed this about 16 hours early, and I think you fell right into the "AfD is not a vote" pitfall. It was clearly pointed out by others that that many of the votes were ILIKEIT votes by fans which had no basis in policy. MSJapan (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Woah. Yeah, dude, seconded. A non-admin close of a contentious AFD, ahead of schedule, with a supervote is always going to get attention. Would strongly suggest you revert this yourself and wait for an admin to look at it. Otherwise you're likely end up at WP:DRV. Never nice for a non-admin. Stalwart111 03:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Saw this when going through AfD because I found another one recently that seemed inappropriate as well and came over here. I guess someone noticed it before me... May I suggest taking a bit of a break or something :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Vac9, I reverted the AfD so you won't end up on DRV. Let an admin take the bullet on this one once there's consensus. A word of advice - so long as you're not an admin, just avoid closing anything that's not an already-deleted article where the admin forgot to close the AfD, or a page that was speedied separately (happens). General rule: If the link is still blue, leave it alone. Just not worth the possible negative repercussions. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I really have no idea how this happened. I see now that this was a delete. I'll take a little break from AfD for now, and avoid late at night closes. I must not have noticed the closing time and the lack of sufficient keep arguments. Feel free to {{trout}} me. FreeRangeFrog, what other AfD are you referring to? Vacation^nine 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The other AfD was unrelated to you, it was a non-admin close by someone else. §FreeRangeFrog 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Vacation^nine 20:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Maldives Article. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)