User talk:Patar knight/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

• News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky

• In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps

• Traffic report: Purple

• Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks

• Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request

• Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

• News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF

• Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil

• In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post

• Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one

• Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs

• Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"

• Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really, really appreciate you following up with the PROD after you removed the speedy tag. I get frustrated by patrollers who just remove deletion tags and don't address the problem the tag was trying to address, so thank you! Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Unless I completely agree that the article should be deleted, I will either PROD it, take it to AfD, or leave a note on the tagger's talk page with an explanation and suggesting PROD/AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian

Thanks for all your help deleting these redirects at CSD.

In Hungarian accents and actually they affect the pronunciation are very important they are not just some kind of bit of typographical clutter. só means something completly different from sö, you jjust can't do it like this. These were made by Neelix and if he knew any Hungarian I'm a dutchman (holland férfi) but I live here and speak it every day, minden nap, this just makes no sense. You have to trust me on the Hungarian ones because I am probably the only editor here, or at least the only one who cares, who can actually speak a bit of Hungarian. Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice to know you are a member of WP:MILHIST. Going through the Neelix redirects, I have not seen many yet but if there are any military ones will it be OK to call on you for your expertise? I think there was one yesterday on some helicopter but there are not many. Si Trew (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for going through the Neelix redirects. Tough slog and not many people doing it. I replied back at the RfD, noting that our policy on diacritics allows for redirects with and without diacritics, because we assume that most users aren't familiar with the foreign languages in question. It's not a question of if it's correct in Hungarian (it's not), but what users of the English Wikipedia are likely to reproduce into the searchbar. Feel free to touch base with me on milhist-related redirects! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we have {{R from title without diacritics}} the thing is in Hungarian these make very little sense because the diacritics are very important. That's great as I trog through them, there are not too many military ones, I will ask your expert aídvice. It may amuse you to know I have a cine photo of me firing a missile at a little russian tank on a firing trial on the edge of essex (RAE Shoeburyness) and we managed to blow that up at about the sixth attempt. I have the pic on me noticeboard. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm on the back of me pack of fags it sazs a dohányzás halalt okoyhat!. Good that my Hungarian is not brilliant enough to translate that, I think it means "coughing sticks will probably kill you". Non smokers die every day as the great Bill Hicks said. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

CSD

I should say I do appreciate your calls at CSD with the Neelix redirects. I think you are wrong, obviously, otherwise I would not put them there (I do actually save about forty percent of em) but to give a second call when I am well obviously not wrong I am always right :) but maybe have missed something, thank you very much for calling it. It must be as boring for you at the back end as it is for me trogging through them. I am bound to miss occasionally. Neither of us is in bad faith and that is the most important thing, neither was Neelix I believe, just some of these now are nonsense with a better search engine. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Processing such a huge amount, there's bound to be decisions others disagree with you on, so don't worry about it. :) I think I do like to keep redirects as plausible search terms. Maybe that's just because the search engine used to be much worse. The backend has been pretty tough, with a high of something like 250 CSD candidates yesterday, down to about 20 now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jay Bowlin

Hello Patar I assure you this is a valid page I am trying to create. Can you tell me why you want to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongongalong (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read the speedy deletion tag on your talk page: "A tag has been placed on Jay Bowlin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable."

Simply put, just being a FB personality is not enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. Unless there is something that would indicate that the subject could potentially our notability guidelines for biographies, it will always be speedily deleted. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

can you tell me why you remove my article. can i not make one about a man whom the information is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongongalong (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read my reply above. Simply presenting truthful information is not sufficient to have a Wikipedia article. The subject of an article must be notable or in the case of avoiding speedy deletion, making a credible claim to passing our notability guidelines. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your RfD closes

Just wanted to let you know that when you close a discussion at WP:RFD, {{subst:Rfd top}} gets placed below the section header of the nomination. (Placing it above the section header breaks the page.) I've corrected a few of your closes over the past couple of days, so I'm letting you know. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to do that in future closes. Weird that it's different from how AfD does it. Do you know why the two XfD forums diverged? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's probably because AfD has individual nomination pages (like MfD does), but all of the others (RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD) have daily subpages where multiple nominations are grouped together. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just went and fixed my last two closes and it looks like you're right. Thanks again for the heads up. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mondago

Why did you delete Mondago? This page was providing a useful reference to explain who the company is from the other references within Wikipedia.--Amitron12 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted under the G11 (spam and promotional material) criterion for speedy deletion. Promotional material is not allowed and can be quickly deleted. If you want to recreate it avoid making it seem promotional and make a case for it meeting our notability guideline for businesses or our general notability guideline by making sure that it is sourced to reliable, independent sources. If you wanted the deleted material to work with, send me an email. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure I will have a go at making at least a stub article. The original material would be useful for this.--Amitron12 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

• News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting

• Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director

• In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax

• Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures

• Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian

• Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee

• Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies

• Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride

• Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

ARI Network Services page deletion

Hi Patar,

I recently tried creating my first article called ARI Network Services Inc. and it was deleted for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Is it possible for me to try creating this page again, and if so, do you have any tips for making sure it doesn't fall under the unambiguous advertising/promotion? I've read a lot of Wikipedia's articles concerning posting new articles since I first tried posting, and I'm hoping my revised draft is acceptable so I can have my first article published.

Thanks! --Reetzam12 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted under G11 because it was written in a promotional tone, including among other things products section that was completely unreferenced and clearly promotional phrasing such as a trademarked slogan in the lede and "allowing it to enhance and expand its suite of products and the vertical markets it served.". Articles must be neutral and encyclopedic. Unless you can find reliable, third-party sources that show how the company passes our notability guideline for companies, it is unlikely the article will survive an articles for deletion discussion.

If you have a conflict of interest with respect to ARI Network Services, Inc. or if you are being paid to get this topic on Wikipedia, either as an employee of ARI or a PR firm hired by ARI, if it is best if you do not recreate the article yourself, but rather, go through the articles for creation process. If you are being paid, you are should also follow the Wikimedia Terms of Use and disclose your client/employer. You can post such a disclosure to your user page by using the following template: {{paid|user=your username here|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 30#Shelf of Russia

I don't see a reason why the RFD discussion for Shelf of Russia was closed so prematurely. Would you mind reopening it so the full discussion can run its course? Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, I was going through speedy keeps and other such obvious closures, and seem to have forgotten that I was on the latest page by the time I had gotten to the bottom. My bad, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

undelete request for our page (ALAPALA)

Dear PATAL

could you please kindly undelete or stop deleting our page called ALAPALA

because this company is a 60 years old company and producing one of the most amount of this kind of machines. this is not an ordinary company page..

but a company with awards like Good Design / GRAPAS and etc. (which are only given to reputable companies like BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Apple and etc.)

Please kindly undelete and stop autodeletion of this page..

Best regards,

Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgurs (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied via email. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments

• [1]

Deryck C. 14:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also a recent change to {{Rfd top}} which may affect your habits. Specifically, the new recommended syntax is {{subst:rfd top|'''result'''.}} [Additional comments.] ~~~~ - the content inside the template will show up in header of the collapsible box on WP:RFD, whereas the additional comments only show up in the daily log page. Deryck C. 14:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Confusion about the Speedy Deletion of Sitting for a Cause

My article of Sitting for a Cause received a speedy deletion because "the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia."

I am very confused by this because competitors to Sitting for a Cause (specifically DogVacay and Rover) both have pages on Wikipedia. My article was similar to theirs yet they still have their article on your site? Neither of their pages indicate why or how their page is important yet mine was deleted? I understand they have more articles around the web written about them, but Sitting for a Cause is a start-up company, brand new, and citations to relevant information were included in the article I wrote.

Can you please further explain this deletion because after reading through the credible claim of significance and seeing competitors articles on your site, the deletion makes no sense to me?

Alohaitsaj (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

When Sitting for a Cause gets as much coverage as the other two, than its article can stay. On Wikipedia, we establish the notability of articles based on what lreliable and independent sources say about them. Of the seven references and external links for Sitting for a Cause, five were either self-published by the company, written by the company's founder, or written by relatives of the company founder. The only two independent sources are a passing mention in a The Muse listicle and some more than passing coverage in the iheartdogs.com article. On the other hand, DogVacay has sources from the LA Times, Forbes, and NBC News among others. Rover.com has references from The Seattle Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. Significant coverage in these sources means an article meets our notability guideline for businesses, significant coverage in iheartdogs.com does not. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Block user IP, page delete

Hi, I have a problem with the creation a page on Wikipedia. I should create a page on a historical fashion company called Cristian Leone based in Florence both in English and Italian. But every time I create the page come and even reported on the Italian Wikipedia Elwood administrator have locked me the IP address. My priority is to create the page in English, but later also in Italian, I know how to fix this situation? I also recorded my e-mail address. waiting for your reply. Thank you, smartlabstudio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlabstudio (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not an admin on the Italian Wikipedia, so I can't help you there. As for the Cristian Leone page on this Wikipedia, it was written in an overly promotional, spammy tone so it was deleted under the G11 criterion of our speedy deletion policy.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Patar knight If i send you what i would write in the page for review and then later publish it on Wikipedia, it gives me the certainty that the page will not be deleted? it's possible to do it ?

Thanks in advance, smartlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlabstudio (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As an account with an obvious conflict of interest, anything shouldn't be directly added to Wikipedia, but shoudl go through the articles for creation process. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

• News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens

• In the media: Jimmy Wales on net neutrality—"It's complicated"—and his $100m fundraising challenge

• Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures

• Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.

• Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WHY!

Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you delected my page game, this is own be true real, please, please, please, please, please, let me taked back! please, don't delected the game page!

It was deleted as it was clearly a hoax and unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. [2] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent RFD closure

Hi. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_2#List_of_games_considered_the_best wasn't advertised on its target page, which probably isn't a big deal since there were a number of voters for "Delete", for all that I'd have voted "Keep" had I known about it... but... more to the point, the nominator did not mention that List of games considered the best was actually the old title of the article. Thus, links from the outside world before the move are pointed at what is now a redlink. Additionally, that particular redirect saw non-trivial use: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-05-03&end=2016-06-01&pages=List_of_games_considered_the_best ~50 or so hits a day. I'd like to either have that close undone, or else recreate the redirect, and it can be discussed again at WP:RFD. Would that be a problem? Or would you rather I go to WP:DRV? (That seems wrong, though, since the problem wasn't exactly your close, just the nomination & discussion not including key facts.) SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

89 hits a day over the last 11 months!. Given the circumstances of the past page move and the lack of advertisement, I would have no problem recreating the redirect and allowing a RFD discussion to get a new consensus, if you want. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Adam Ray

That's not the first time an A7 tag removed by me has been retagged. Do people not bother to check the history, or have I developed a reputation as someone best ignored when it comes to A7? I suspect both actually. Adam9007 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the latter, but most CSD taggers won't take the time to check page history before tagging. Likely just laziness rather than malice. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Posting of Gordie as blurb at ITN

Kindly return to the discussion and justify your posting of this as blurb. There was significant opposition to a blurb and the death does not meet the criteria for blurb. Also the decision was hastily made within just 12 hours. MurielMary (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I've been out the entire day and just got back, so I haven't been able to look back at the thread. I (obviously) don't agree with you, but I'll be sure to post an explanation. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be a bit more diligent before declining speedy deletion

Please be a bit more diligent and check the edit history of an article/user page, before declining speedy deletion. The primary article creator and account owner of User:Nauriya/sandbox3 placed a generic speedy deletion tag requesting deletion. I merely re-categorized it under CSD G7. Had you properly checked the edit history, you could have confirmed that. The article creator/account owner most definitely requested deletion in good faith, so that speedy deletion tag should not have been declined. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Link to the author's last page revision, where he requested deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nauriya/sandbox3&oldid=725243333 Safiel (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You should not have simply copy-pasted the user's deletion rationale and kept the first-person without some sort of indication like ("Original author said:X" or "From page history:X"). Ding makes its look like you are the one requesting deletion and not the author. In any case, it's not an issue to have generic speedy deletion tags with deletion rationales that are essentially G7, because admins will go check the page history automatically if they see G7; converting them to G7 is at best useless and at worst leads to cases like this when the new deletion rationale is misleading. I've gone ahead and deleted the page per G7. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: Shouldn't it have been U1? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If the user requests deletion in userspace, both G7 (which doesn't explicitly exclude userspace unless it's just blanking the page) or U1 would apply. Since the above complaint was based on a G7, tagging, that's the one I chose, but it could've been either though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

203.14.53.81

Please block user:203.14.53.81 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4021:617C:E657:19B8 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks. In the future, you can report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of individual admins' talkpages. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

27.111.71.67

user:27.111.71.67 needs blocking too. Sorry to bother you, but wp:aiv doesn't open up to me for a few minutes. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4021:617C:E657:19B8 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, though WP:AIV is the better option. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Foundation The Polish-Russian Center for Dialogue and Understanding

Sir,

You have deleted the sourced page, please recreate it. Please remeber that the editor, who marked the article helds a grudge against me, so please check his opinions in the future. Xx236 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of any disagreements between you two, the deleted article consisted of one sentence asserting that the title foundation was a foundation and then listed one redlinked president of the foundation. It was in that state for seven hours.Articles that do not make a credible claim of notability can be deleted under A7. I am in no position to judge disputes between you and other users, but the speedy deletion tagging of your article was correct. I would recommend recreating the page in your userspace and expanding it before moving it into mainspace. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right - I mean The Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding. It was sourced and had two directors, see Sławomir Dębski, not red any more.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That one was more borderline, since it was essentially a rephrasing of its title (i.e. the centre for X and Y between A and B promotes and Y between A and B), but restoring it is also reasonable given this request. I've added relevant content tags, and would recommend expanding it to add more content. For example, while I googled this while deciding to restore it or not, I came upon this [3]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm working on the subject.Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I See you deleted the "Zee (Cat)" Page

One of the major reasons Zee is significant is because she is one of the few cats to receive stem cell therapy, She has been in a news article, She has 5000 Followers on twitter. I can verify Zee had stem cell therapy MrWonderful2000 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Being in one news article or having s couple thousand Twitter followers is not by itself indication of notability. Any mention of possible notability because of advances in veterinary use of stem cells was not present in the article. If you recreate the article please add references that show how it meets our notability guidelines (i.e. being covered in-depth by multiple, independent reliable sources). Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lalit Moorjani

Hello,

I am curious as to why the page Lalit Moorjani was deleted. Please let me know what issues you have with it and I will address them.

Regards, Billygotescruff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billygotescruff (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As it says in the deletion log, it was deleted under speedy criterion G11, which is meant for unambiguous cases of promotional material. Given that the article was liberally peppered with sentences like "His goal was to complement his natural business savvy with a strong foundation in technology, and finance," and "Lalit Moorjani's work ethic is described as strong urgency paired with unparalleled stamina," it is very clearly promotional in nature. Given how the rest of the article reads like a CV with sections on his duties and contains spammy phrasing like "a recognized financial industry professional", "has traveled extensively," " a seasoned international businessman," "vast international work experience," "Lalit was crucial to," etc., deleting as G11 was an easy choice.

In any case, if you recreate it, I doubt it would survive speedy deletion unless it is extensively rewritten to not be promotional, and even if it is written in neutral, encyclopedic style, someone who as far as I can tell was your average, competent financial VP (who are a dime a dozen in the finance industry) who once saved someone's life in a minor incident, would fail to meet our notability guideline for biographies and would likely be deleted at articles for deletion process.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the drug slang RfD

I want to bring to your attention to a couple of edits I just performed on Happy powder (edit) and Joy powder (edit). Maybe these need to either be returned to RfD or converted to list articles. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well they're not redirects anymore, so RfD isn't the right venue; I would not object to them being turned into list articles or something else. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant that maybe they should he reconverted to redirects so that they could possibly be deleted per WP:REDLINK to promote the creation of the lists at those titles. (That, and our policies are not very clear on what criteria qualify a disambiguation page for deletion if it isn't eligible for a WP:CSD.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems awfully bureaucratic to convert them into redirects to be discussed at RfD so they can be deleted and recreated as lists whose initial content would be pretty similar to what we started with. If you want to turn them into list or whatever, just be bold and do it. As for deleting disambiguation pages, IIRC, the few I've seen at AfD to had arguments using the main disambiguation guideline page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, considering that an AfD result for those pages may be "redirect to ..." if nominated. I may revisit those pages at a later time; I don't foresee me taking any action on them in the immediate future since I'm pondering how to approach this situation with those pages the best. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A complaint

I do not like you. You are mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloeandthemoon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Doing my job. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Db-r3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sleep_Is_a_Myth&oldid=prev&diff=726112552 and not common Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

David Letele G4

I see that you deleted David Letele under G4. I take it you didn't see on the talk page why the criteria for G4 were not met. Schwede66 18:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw it (hence the delay between deleting the article and the talk page) and did not agree with that assessment. The deleted article was not substantially different from the one deleted in October last year. The primary concern in the AfD was that Letele did not meet WP:NBOX because winning a corporate title was not sufficient for notability and the "new" article did not have anything other than more fights to retain that corporate title. The AfD also found that his non-sporting achievements were not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, and the article I deleted did not make new claims that were not in the previous version. Since the AfD's concerns were not addressed, G4 is still valid. However, if you want me to userfy it for you or some other user, I can do that.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Obviously, I couldn't compare it against the previous version; I just noted the many references later than the previous deletion date. I do, however, wonder about it not meeting GNG, with the Herald article pre-AfD, but the Paul Henry interview more recent. I reckon it would survive AfD this time round based on GNG. Can I suggest that you restore the article and we start another AfD? Schwede66 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, restored and sent to AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It got closed as keep. Schwede66 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It's always refreshing when someone opposed to deletion makes a polite request instead of shooting of an angry email. With this level-headed attitude and what looks like a solid history of edits, you should seriously consider running for adminship (if you want it that is). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny you say this. Schwede66 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Too lazy to write a full post there. I'll just say that I would !vote for you based on this interaction and based on a quick look at your edit count page, that you would have a good shot at passing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on "Divided W Fall"

The original page was "Divided W Fall". The creator submitted an RM, which I closed quickly as a technical request, swapping Divided We Fall (album) with it. Hence, I deliberately placed the redirect at the typo page following the round-robin procedure. It just didn't feel right to R3 newly moved retargeted redirect that I performed, if that makes sense. I could have placed the redirect at some other location and not make it qualify for R3. I didn't want to come across as gaming the system in the slightest. Granted, the RM by the creator was unnecessary, but the guidelines on redirects moved via "page-swap" aren't exactly clear about it, so I went what I believe was a safer RfD route. Thanks, hope that makes sense. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Redirects from implausible typos are basically guaranteed to get deleted at RfD and always qualify for R3. In this case, G7 would apply as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Welcome to WP:RFD!!! (Or, welcome back if you've been there before, but if you were, it was before my time.) Seems as though you have become one of RfD's new admin regulars!!! Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I never did RfD before this May when I was doing my CSD patrolling and Neelix redirects started coming up in the queue. Good to know I've found a new place for myself to help. :) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

• News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany

• Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?

• In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source

• Featured content: Triple fun of featured content

• Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit

• Blog: Jimmy Wales names Emily Temple-Wood and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight as Wikipedians of the Year

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Reach for the top.

My edit on the page was correct but perhaps another category should be made for it. Please revert the edit and if extra sources are needed then check https://wstmntfeed.commons.hwdsb.on.ca/2016/03/30/reach-for-the-top-9/ www.hwdsb.on.ca/orchardpark/2014/04/21/orchard-park-reaches-for-the-top/ http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/westmount/about/profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheorylord (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That shows that the intermediate (i.e. junior varsity) team went undefeated in their season, which for the intermediate level, ends at the regional level. Those are not national championships, and regional champions are a dime a dozen and not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

TAMEKU METAL CONSTRUCTION

Hi Patar knight,

Can you please delete the talkpage for this article, as you have already deleted the main article itself... Thanks! 172.58.40.241 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Page deleted

Good evening sir. I would like to know the exact reasons of deleting the page Paul Katsetis. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manos H. Scorer (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 July 2016‎

It was deleted under speedy criterion G4, which allows deletion of pages that are not substantially different from versions deleted in past deletion discussions or does not address the issues that caused its deletion in past deletion discussions. In this case, Katsetis's article was deleted in 2012 because it failed both the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for football players as he has never appeared in a fully professional league|fully professional league (FPL). Despite the updating of the article, it still does not say that Katsesis has made an appearance in an FPL, so it would have been deleted at AfD for the same reasons as the last discussion. If between the deletion and now, Katsesis has made an appearance in an FPL, I can restore the article and it can be updated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

• News and notes: Board faces diversity and skill-base issues in new FDC appointments

• Discussion report: Busy month for discussions

• In the media: Women in science editathon gets national press; Wikipedia "shockingly biased"

• Featured content: A wide variety from the best

• Traffic report: Sports and esports

• Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks

• Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Denis Thatcher

You might as well just retarget the redirect to Margaret Thatcher § Early life and education. I would have absolutely no problem with that, as long as the added information at Denis Thatcher § Marriages is wholly moved to the Thatcher article. That way we can get this whole palaver over and done with sooner rather than later. It is a compromise I can certainly live with.--Neve–selbert 01:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Retargeting would do nothing with the DRV template on the redirect anyway. DRV and a likely relist at RfD would be about two weeks of discussions. The only way to preempt this would be if everyone on the original RfD discussion agreed to retarget to Margaret Thatcher#Early political career with the relevant content included, then there would be cause for a speedy resolution of the DRV. If you want to ping/notify everyone and try to get a speedy resolution, go for it, but I would prefer to just let the deletion process do its work; it's not really a big deal and a new RfD with more opinions might lead to a clearer consensus(clarified 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF, Siuenti, 210.6.254.106, and Gorthian: Sorry to disturb fellow editors, but both I and Patar knight over here are interested as to whether each of you would agree or not to retarget the redirect whose namesake is in the section title above back to Margaret Thatcher § Early life and education, merely for speedy resolution to lay this tendentious matter to rest among parties, hence changing/clarifying your original stances at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 07:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is now moot because someone has endorsed the close at the DRV discussion, so the DRV and any possible relisting will have to run its course. A note for the future, Neve-selbert, pings don't work for IP editors, so you would have had to post on their IP talk page to notify them. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the Early political career section from 1951-1955? Early life and education section was before she got married, so that wouldn't apply. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I copy-pasted the error from Neve-selbert. In any case the endorse vote at the DRV renders this moot. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I was in a bit of a rush but I had meant Margaret Thatcher § Early political career. I am a little unsure about what is going to happen with the redirect now. To be clear, I am content with either us (a) retargeting to Margaret Thatcher § Early political career and transferring the paragraph at Denis Thatcher § Marriages to the Thatcher article or (b) keeping the redirect the way it is at the moment while removing the "Mrs Denis Thatcher" paragraph from the Thatcher article and wholly transferring it to the Denis Thatcher article.--Neve–selbert 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would an RFC be a good idea, to gauge wider consensus?--Neve–selbert 22:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If your goal is to quickly resolve this, an RFC would likely take at least 30 days, and closures might take up to 60 days after that (check out the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure). As long as there's consensus on a talk page or in a new RfD, that should be fine. I've replied to the post above this one at Margaret Thatcher talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

I just want to bring your attention to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Stephen Harper. Cheers, Graham (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of the conversation already through my watchlist and I'm currently working on meeting the concerns of Ontario Teacher re: restrictions on scientists that I'm planning on finishing before going to the talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Patar knight,

I would like to transfer our comments about Public Transit from "Weasel Words" to "Environmental Policy" on the talk page. I feel this way, the discussion would be more organized. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This does make it easier. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Question One‎‎ et al

I'm sure that you've noticed this, but there appears to be a squad of sock or meatpuppets that have been editing these articles that all commented on this AFD in a short period of time. Is it worth taking this to WP:SPI or not worth bothering? shoy (reactions) 13:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

For the AfDs, admins will close based on policy arguments and if they don't you can discuss with them and possible DRV it. I wouldn't SPI unless it remains an issue after the end of the deletion process. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi. I've pasted this across several admins' talk pages to no avail. Maybe you can break the streak! If not, I'm still going to stop now. Either way, helllllllp. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In the future, try posting on WP:AN to get eyes somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Blake Fitzpatrick

Hi! I thought you would like to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Fitzpatrick was deleted and is currently under deletion review after an arguably unreliable Afd. Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Already endorsed the deletion at the DRV. Please be aware of WP:APPNOTE; my unlinking of an article deleted at AfD doesn't really constitute "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Liz Sandals

My post on Liz Sandals was factually accurate and I believe my edit should be re-reversed. I cited Canadian news articles to backup the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.251.56.217 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[4] This is just copying the first two paragraphs and duplicating it at the top of the page, not "adding references". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Last I checked the Toronto Star is one of the oldest newspapers in Canada and hardly a "right-wing" news source... ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.251.56.217 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2016‎ (UTC)

That edit above does not add a TorStar article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge

On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge in Ottawa was renamed in 2016 to commemorate the victims of the deadliest construction accident in Ontario's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Prakash gajbhiye

But it still is too short to be an articleVarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 14:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Being short is not a speedy deletion criterion. Take it to AfD if you disagree, but per WP:POLITICIAN, members of top-level sub-national legislature are typically considered notable. In the future, please do not tag articles like this one with WP:A7, which requires no credible claim of significance. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Clear liquids

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Clear liquids. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25