User talk:HighKing/Archives/2017/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransUnion CIBIL. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone ever tell you that templating an experienced editor is rude? I've returned the favour. -- HighKing++ 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hoping to get a reconsider on the deletion of Springbox entry
Hi HighKing, Not sure you are the correct editor to raise this this issue in regards to the deletion of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Springbox_(company) Please adevise. I must have been out of the country when the notice for imminent deletion was put on this entry. I would like to address the issues and raise the entry to Wikipedia's standards if possible. Do you have any advice on how to commence with the task of getting Springbox entry reconsidered? I understand that the two issues are: WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
Thanks for your patience. Kaplanovitchskyite (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not the correct editor to raise this issue with. If you with to request a review of the deletion of that page, you can open a request for a deletion review here). -- HighKing++ 10:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Gracias Kaplanovitchskyite (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
HelloFresh
Hello HighKing. HelloFresh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which you previously WP:PRODed, was refunded/recreated. (Changes from PRODed version) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note ...
When you nominate an article at AfD, do not add "Delete" to your nomination rationale. At AfD, your nomination is considered your !vote; see WP:AFDLIST. Since you have had absences from Wikipedia, you may not have been aware of this. Going forward, please do not include a !vote in your AfD rationales. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender, in my opinon, I think adding the initial "Delete" is a good idea to highlight the initial reasons for deletion. WP:AFDLIST only says not to add another !vote - it doesn't address putting an initial Delete in bold in the nomination itself. Has this been discussed previously? -- HighKing++ 16:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, it is not allowed on AfDs. Please re-read the guide I linked: "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." If you like, please consult an admin experienced in AfDs, such as Northamerica1000. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I disagree based on the quotation you've extracted. It states that nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations. This is not what I have done. -- HighKing++ 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender, please stop interfering with my nomintation. If you have a problem with it, report it although I am sure you'll be told that it isn't against policy or guidelines (whereas editing somebody elses comments is). -- HighKing++ 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The nominator is allowed to state a rationale, but not to !vote in any way, because the nomination already implies a recommendation to delete the article. This has been standard for several years; the fact that you do not understand this does not change that fact. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- First you say the nomination is a !vote. Now you say a nomination is not to !vote in any way? You're just making this up as you go along. What I do know is two things. The first is that that my nomination is not against guidelines or policy. The second is that coming to an experienced editor's Talk page, spouting nonsense about your interpretation of guidelines and trying to browbeat/bully an editor is most definitely *not* in the spirit of this project. Go and find somebody else to bother. -- HighKing++ 16:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The nominator is allowed to state a rationale, but not to !vote in any way, because the nomination already implies a recommendation to delete the article. This has been standard for several years; the fact that you do not understand this does not change that fact. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, it is not allowed on AfDs. Please re-read the guide I linked: "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." If you like, please consult an admin experienced in AfDs, such as Northamerica1000. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi HighKing, There are 115 AFD's created on 8/29. None of them have the nominator's rationale labelled "Delete". I don't know about the wording of any specific guideline, but the fact is, it's one of those things that might make sense if everyone did it, but sticks out like a sore thumb when just one person does it. There's no sense you two getting angry about the small stuff, it distracts from the bigger question. How about we remove the bolded "delete", User:Softlavender's comment at the bottom of the AFD, and the templated warnings you've been trading? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Floq, it's not a case of "getting angry" or of things "making sense", it's a matter of proper AfD procedures (perhaps you don't do much AfD work). HighKing is edit-warring to retain his non-allowed !vote, in spite of being apprised of the current procedures which have been in place since late 2011. He has been absent from Wikipedia for a couple of years, and probably was not aware of the change of AfD procedures, but now that he is aware, he should not be edit-warring against WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. I'm not trying to get into a whole thing, just salve a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Floq, rant first. Her behaviour can only be classified as browbeating and/or bullying. Her justifications are ludicrous. I was never absent from WP for a couple of years and my involvement for the past year has been nearly solely in the AfD area so its not like I don't know my way around. Her interpretation of WP:AFDLIST is wrong. The reason why none of the other AfD's have the Delete is because she deleted it from my nominations. Perhaps it sticks out like a sore thumb but in my opinion it is better in that format. She templated an experienced editor (who's been at this editing lark before she was). She accuses me of edit-warring but conveniently leaves out the fact that she breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts. She accuses me of edit-warring but it is completely verboten to edit another editor's comments - especially when that editor asks them to stop. Who made her the AfD nomination-format police anyway? There's a good chance that had she come here and explained civilly that it sticks out like a sore thumb *before* she changed 7 or 8 of my nominations, then sure, different interaction and probably a different outcome. She is totally out of order and based on her responses here, out of control and in need of some time away from the keyboard. Not once has she considered the fact that she is plain wrong about AFDLIST and if she stopped and took that fact on board, she'd see that she has behaved very poorly. But yeah, overall I agree with you, tis small stuff. Line drawn under, rant over. I think its best to tidy up and we can get back to behaving like adults. I appreciate your intervention, thank you. -- HighKing++ 17:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, so I've removed the bolded "Delete" from your rationale, based on your OK here. I've also removed Softlavender's comment from the AFD in question, since it no longer applies, and might distract from the deletion discussion. I'd encourage both of you to remove the edit warring templates from your user talk pages, but of course that's up to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Floq, rant first. Her behaviour can only be classified as browbeating and/or bullying. Her justifications are ludicrous. I was never absent from WP for a couple of years and my involvement for the past year has been nearly solely in the AfD area so its not like I don't know my way around. Her interpretation of WP:AFDLIST is wrong. The reason why none of the other AfD's have the Delete is because she deleted it from my nominations. Perhaps it sticks out like a sore thumb but in my opinion it is better in that format. She templated an experienced editor (who's been at this editing lark before she was). She accuses me of edit-warring but conveniently leaves out the fact that she breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts. She accuses me of edit-warring but it is completely verboten to edit another editor's comments - especially when that editor asks them to stop. Who made her the AfD nomination-format police anyway? There's a good chance that had she come here and explained civilly that it sticks out like a sore thumb *before* she changed 7 or 8 of my nominations, then sure, different interaction and probably a different outcome. She is totally out of order and based on her responses here, out of control and in need of some time away from the keyboard. Not once has she considered the fact that she is plain wrong about AFDLIST and if she stopped and took that fact on board, she'd see that she has behaved very poorly. But yeah, overall I agree with you, tis small stuff. Line drawn under, rant over. I think its best to tidy up and we can get back to behaving like adults. I appreciate your intervention, thank you. -- HighKing++ 17:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. I'm not trying to get into a whole thing, just salve a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: HighKing was virtually absent from Wikipedia from late 2013 through mid 2016 [1]. He also had a complete absence from AfD participation from October 2014 through August 2016: [2]. Everyone isn't expected to know every guideline or change, especially when they've been away, but when they are apprised of the guideline, they need to display cooperation and understanding. I have been civil and neutral in explaining matter to HighKing. The reason the issue is important is that we are not just talking about one AfD; we are talking about multiple existing AfDs, and any AfD nominations going forward. It is important for the user to learn this now. I would very much like Northamerica1000 to confirm this with the user when he (NA1000) comes back online. Softlavender (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is not "neutral" to enforce your opinion while you are allegedly attempting to explain your interpretation of policy or guideline to another editor. This was not an article page and being BOLD does not apply. It is not "civil" to template an experienced editor. It is neither civil nor neutral to edit another person's contributions and present it as a fait accompli - you might want to look at this arbitration ruling. Regardless of whether your interpretation of AFDLIST is correct or incorrect, your conduct is inappropriate. Going one step further, just assume, for one minute, however unlikely you think it is, that your interpretation is actually wrong. Nuff said. -- HighKing++ 11:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The "delete" is gone, and is unlikely to be inserted again. Is it really that hard to just walk away? May I have the last word? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you completely read my post above, so I'll repeat some of it: Everyone isn't expected to know every guideline or change, especially when they've been away, but when they are apprised of the guideline, they need to display cooperation and understanding. The reason the issue is important is that we are not just talking about one AfD; we are talking about multiple existing AfDs, and any AfD nominations going forward. It is important for the user to learn this now. There's no indication that he has indeed learned it, and he continues to insist that "Her interpretation of WP:AFDLIST is wrong" and "she is plain wrong about AFDLIST". That is why we need NA1000 to follow-up with the editor. He also claimed that I "breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts" which is not true: 1, 2, 3. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sweet Jesus. HighKing, I think you were probably wrong about the bold delete, but the relentless snark really does get under one's skin quickly, doesn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Can you indicate who you are talking about? If you are calling anything I have written "snark", can you please quote what you consider "snark"? Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sweet Jesus. HighKing, I think you were probably wrong about the bold delete, but the relentless snark really does get under one's skin quickly, doesn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you completely read my post above, so I'll repeat some of it: Everyone isn't expected to know every guideline or change, especially when they've been away, but when they are apprised of the guideline, they need to display cooperation and understanding. The reason the issue is important is that we are not just talking about one AfD; we are talking about multiple existing AfDs, and any AfD nominations going forward. It is important for the user to learn this now. There's no indication that he has indeed learned it, and he continues to insist that "Her interpretation of WP:AFDLIST is wrong" and "she is plain wrong about AFDLIST". That is why we need NA1000 to follow-up with the editor. He also claimed that I "breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts" which is not true: 1, 2, 3. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: HighKing was virtually absent from Wikipedia from late 2013 through mid 2016 [1]. He also had a complete absence from AfD participation from October 2014 through August 2016: [2]. Everyone isn't expected to know every guideline or change, especially when they've been away, but when they are apprised of the guideline, they need to display cooperation and understanding. I have been civil and neutral in explaining matter to HighKing. The reason the issue is important is that we are not just talking about one AfD; we are talking about multiple existing AfDs, and any AfD nominations going forward. It is important for the user to learn this now. I would very much like Northamerica1000 to confirm this with the user when he (NA1000) comes back online. Softlavender (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, Softlavender, just FYI, NA1000 states "It's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header. What WP:AFDFORMAT and WP:AFDLIST state is that the delete !vote in bold should not be repeated in a new comment, although commentary remains allowed". Based on this, would you both regard the practice as acceptable and not against any policy/guideline? -- HighKing++ 15:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I never thought (and hope I never said anywhere) that it was "unacceptable", just uncommon to the point of possible confusion. I still kind of think it's uncommon to the point of possible confusion (I looked again at other days, and really no one seems to be doing this), but I also agree that NA1000 knows their stuff regarding AFD, so I defer to their judgement completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea, and is not done, as you can see. I don't agree with NA1000's reply to you; the absence or presence of a bullet appears to be hairsplitting; a bolded !vote is a bolded !vote. While nominators in other XfDs often submit bolded !votes (with or without bullets), in AfDs that has been taken off the table for the past several years. If you would like further clarification, you can start a thread on WT:Guide to deletion. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Softlavender - not to split hairs, but I'm not the one that is attempting to change a written guideline. You've received clarification from NA1000 and it is clear that both my interpretation and his align. If you wish to contest and attempt to change existing guidelines, perhaps it is more appropriate for you to open a thread. I'm mildly disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to apologize in some way for your conduct in this matter. Nevertheless, it is clear you were wrong in your interpretation, wrong to edit my comments, wrong ... actually lets leave it at that. -- HighKing++ 17:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea, and is not done, as you can see. I don't agree with NA1000's reply to you; the absence or presence of a bullet appears to be hairsplitting; a bolded !vote is a bolded !vote. While nominators in other XfDs often submit bolded !votes (with or without bullets), in AfDs that has been taken off the table for the past several years. If you would like further clarification, you can start a thread on WT:Guide to deletion. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)