User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 21: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1

Hello, I revised the article that you initially deleted, so it contains better references and it's more relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raoul_Bhatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonystargazer (talk • contribs)

Okay. I don't do AfC, so you'll have to submit it and wait for a reviewer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inuit clothing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that modern studies have shown that the characteristic fur-trimmed hood on traditional Inuit skin clothing (example pictured) is more effective at preventing heat transfer than manufactured winter clothing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inuit clothing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inuit clothing), 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.

—valereee (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to edit Cory Briggs [1] as a draft and add additional sources to his page. There are numerous articles about him and his cases in San Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirvlc (talk • contribs)

Show me your best three sources, please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your featured article! Haukur (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate the time all the reviewers put in to make the article the best it could be. If it wasn't for you, we wouldn't have the lead image we have now, and there's no denying the new one is way better. Hope to see you around! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Dali (goddess). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recent close, voilà. A lowly stub at the moment, but when the revolution comes it will surely expand. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viva la revolución, my man. Looking forward to one day sipping mai tais while automated luxury adminbots write all my articles for me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings PMC! Congrats on FA for Dali :) Sorry I couldn't respond to you & User:Spicy I was offline :) Regards! An emperor /// Ave 23:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your help throughout the whole process :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please peek at the page deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanis to see if either this draft needs to be deleted as a re-creation, if it's based on the original enough to require a history-merge, or if it's different and can be reviewed on its own merits?

If it's the last one, could you paste references that are in the deleted version to the talk page of the draft? With the references it has, it's potentially in the grey area of "maybe" when it comes to meeting WP:BIO and related notability guidelines, provided someone worked long and hard on it. My hope is that it's either a copy and can be deleted immediately, or that it's got additional references that would make me say "yea, the person is wiki-notable, even a rewrite is required."

• Mark Hanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Mark Hanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely identical, literally to the word and link placement. It even has the exact same list of ELNO-violating links at the end. You can nuke it from space at your leisure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tagged G4 with a link to this discussion, figured I'll save the deleting admin the time of checking it out for himself (although he probably will because it is, or should be, part of the G4-delete sanity-check routine) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the G4 was declined because it was a draft. Given that it is identical and obviously not improved upon, I figured the "anti-circumvention" exception to the "draft exception" applied, but there's no harm letting it age out with a G13 in a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could try MfD, but yeah, G13 is probably the path of least resistance if it's not being actively fucked with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the best outcome would be if someone were to [bleep] with in in a positive way, making it clear that the topic does meet WP:N and re-write it in a form suitable for Wikipedia. I'm not motivated to do that right now, but maybe you or some {{talk page stalker}} is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope not. It's obviously promotional editing, we shouldn't be encouraging that kind of thing by rewriting and moving to main, especially after it's already been deleted at AfD for lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread me. IF a topic IS notable, even if the Draft: article is initially unacceptable, it can be gutted and re-written in draft space then promoted to the main encyclopedia. If a topic is NOT notable, then of course burn it with fire and throw WP:SALT on it if necessary. This topic was in the "grey zone" so preferred first step one would be getting it out of the "grey zone" by adding suitable references that clearly demonstrate its notability. If that can't be done, then adding enough references to "firm up" the notability claim as much as possible without being spammy, then have "disinterested" editors use those sources and maybe others to try to make a suitable article, knowing that "we give up" is an acceptable outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did misread you, considering you said the best thing would be someone re-writing it to make it suitable for Wikipedia, but I also don't want to argue about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Sajjan Pandey.jpg as delete, but it seems you forgot to delete the page, thought I might just tell you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, XfDCloser fail. Thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.227.150.1/Archive 1 (2nd nomination); all three keep !votes were based on the question "why we would want to delete the long history of an IP's vandalism and abuse". No-one is proposing to delete the history; the nomination itself says that the various archived notices "...are anyway available in page history". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally nominated it for deletion at MfD. Your nomination doesn't make clear that you weren't seeking deletion, so of course the arguments of other participants would be based around deletion rather than some other unspecified action on your part. In any case, closing as keep doesn't mean you can't blank it or move it or whatever else you want to do to it, it just means it's not getting deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misundertand me. I am indeed proposing to delete the archives. No-one is proposing to delete the talk pages' history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk pages are rarely ever deleted and User talk page archives are an extension of the User talk page. Normal Op (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is orthogonal to my request; but IP talk pages are regularly, routinely, and usually blanked without archiving. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So blank the archive. Nothing in my close precludes that; only that there was no consensus to delete the archive outright. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

Hi PMC,

Regarding your recent close of the above AFD, there still seems to be some confusion. I'm under the impression that the keep is a means to preserve attribution for any merging that people might want to do. I've since tried to re-redirect it back to the main Wikipedia article, but apparently this has still been objected to. In reading back over the discussion, the keeps were almost invariably of the ITSJUSTNOTABLE type. Everyone that was actually looking at the sources specifically and in detail was very clear about how none of them supported the existence of the article and that the SYNTH problems were insurmountable.

Do you not agree with this assessment? Pinging Normal Op, who was suggesting that this needs to go to DRV instead of my redirecting. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbis: Re "as a means to preserve attribution"... that's what the edit history is for. If you redirect an article, its original contents are always still available via the edit history. Therefore, a decision to "merge" (which almost always means leave the original article as a redirect pointing to where it got merged) would be executed like you just did. But a Keep vote is a different thing. Hence my confusion why you executed actions consistent with a Merge decision, not a Keep decision. Normal Op (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I'm asking here. If it really was meant as a pure keep, I think it bears a second look, because the strength of the arguments at the discussion overwhelmingly favors some sort of merge/redirect option. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I hadn't even followed the AfD or the article. I was just looking at the technicality of it all. What I saw was: close as Keep, reopen discussion, close as Keep, then you did actions consistent with a Merge decision. Sometimes you just have to bend to the will of the consensus (even if you completely disagree with it) and wait another 6 months or so and re-submit an AfD. Or do a deletion review or something else. But you can't just buck the consensus and not expect some blowback for it. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closure meant exactly what I wrote: there was no consensus to delete the content outright (not even a burgeoning argument for deletion that would have merited a relist), therefore the discussion no longer belongs at Articles for Deletion. The close explicitly stated that determining whether or not to merge or redirect it can be handled outside AfD. Normally that would be by a consensus-seeking process at an appropriate venue (usually the article's talk page). I have added a clarifying comment at the AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PMC. My name is Adam Jensen. I’m a hardworking independent musician from Boston. I’m wondering if you can tell me why you deleted my Wikipedia page?

It’s been there for five or more years. I did not make it and I honestly am not very computer savvy so I don’t even know how to try to re-make it on my own. I don’t see why you would come after me, I don’t bother anyone. I write and produce my own stuff. I make my living and feed my family off of my music career. Last year I got 300 million streams independently, competing with most major label artists as an independent artist. A million monthly listeners on Spotify, again out-streaming the majority of major label artists. I’m only mentioning these things because I see that you are an independent fiction writer so I’m wondering why you would decide to pick on lil ol’ me?

At first I was very angry because I figured you were just some troll/hater. But then I saw that you have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and you seem like an unbiased, intelligent person. So I’m honestly wondering why you deleted my Wikipedia page?? Do we know each other personally?? Do you not like my music or something?? Are you just being a bully? Please let me know why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I closed the articles for deletion discussion (found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Jensen (musician)) as soft delete in accordance with Wikipedia procedures. The original nominator, who wasn't me, made a reasonable argument for deletion - that you do not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage to meet our notability guideline - and there was no opposition. Please don't attempt to recreate it yourself; autobiographies are frowned upon especially when the article has already been deleted once. (As a side note, I've removed your email address - you probably don't want it out there for eternity getting scraped by mirrors and spambots). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you just get to delete me forever based on your personal opinion? I notice you went to every other page that mentions my name and deleted me as well. Thats so awesome. There has been plenty of major coverage of my music over the last decade. Did you even look me up? I think you just didn’t do your research and arbitrarily deleted my page so you could add another one to your list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK. You messed up. You are wrong. You delete pages for fun and you got it wrong this time. But now go back and fix it like a normal human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meet almost every criteria listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen man, if you're going to continue to make this weird and personal, I'm going to stop responding. I understand that this is upsetting to you, but accusing me of deleting the page for arbitrary reasons despite the clear explanation I provided in my first reply isn't helpful, and neither is ordering me about and telling me I'm not acting like a human. Removing links to deleted pages from other pages is an automated function, not a personal vendetta. I'm not going to argue with you with regards to your own notability in the absence of reliable sources - this is exactly why we recommend that people avoid editing about themselves. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC! Last year you gave autopatrol right to my account. Due to certain risks to my privacy I have advice to do a fresh start. Is it possible to move the autopatrol right to the new account? In the long term I think that the risk is low but, it is still present, and if this account (I am writing on it) was found, then the risk suddenly becomes very high of harassment or other things. Please let me know, if you can move the autopatrol right to my new account. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a problem as long as there's confirmation that the new account is you (you could email me from the Sail 95 account to give me your new username, for example), but it would pretty blatantly mark your new account as a returning user. And considering you said you wanted to continue to work in the same area, it would probably be a very obvious indicator that the new account was you specifically. I'm willing to do it, but I just want you to keep in mind that it might make your fresh start harder to maintain anonymity on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chance of the group who I am thinking about, even finding one of the accounts is very low. I think that they will not go through the trouble of making any edits just to harass, but it is probably safer to start again, so that the account cannot be traced to this one such as with a name change. Helps that I know exactly who the person making the biggest problem is, what I am being careful about, so that I can make the chance of finding as low as possible. Maybe it is an idea to add the autopatrol right after a few weeks or months instead. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it less obvious for sure, although again if you're making the same kind of articles in the same topic area your identity might still be fairly obvious (especially if it's a low-traffic topic area with few other active editors). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it is worth saying, that I will probably edit in more areas too, instead of one specific area. I will let you know about it soon. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sipiniq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Inuit identity of sipiniq referred to individuals who were believed to have changed their physical sex at the moment of birth, but were socialized as members of their original gender? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sipiniq. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sipiniq), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the sipiniq article - thanks for creating it, it's super interesting and important the infomation is represented here! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lajmmoore, thanks! I found out about it while writing about inuit clothing. There was a point where I'd written a couple paragraphs about sipiniq in the clothing article just to explain the concept and why the clothing mattered and I realized it would be better off as its own article, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today I was going to do some editing to Frank majuri's page and found out you deleted it. Just asking why was it deleted there was no reason to delete it GiacomoValenti (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion linked in the deletion log (which you obviously read since you know I deleted the page) had a consensus for delete. Come on, you've been here long enough to be able to follow a link to an AfD discussion and read it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Dali (goddess) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article, introduced "Right! This was my first GA, way back in early 2018. It's come a long way since the GA version, and I think at this point I have to stop being a coward and just do the FA nom. I've scoured the internet for every available source, and I'm pretty sure this is as comprehensive as I can make it without actually learning Georgian (and even then, the most important Georgian source, Elene Virsaladze's Georgian hunting myths and poetry, is available online in a high-quality English translation published by the Georgian National Academy). For sources which are not freely/immediately available online, I have access to PDFs of most and can email copies to anyone who wants to do a source check. The evolution of Dali is an incredible testimony to the plasticity and transformation of myth. To some authors, she represents evidence that classical Georgia borrowed mythemes from classical Greece. To others, she is an example of the mistress of the hunt, an archetype found in stories across Europe. After Christianity came to Georgia, she was sometimes regarded as a demoness. No matter the interpretation, she remains uniquely herself: haughty, demanding, and seductive. To quote John Mulaney: Dali is a bitch, and I like her so much."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly help me to remove the template Orphan from the subject page, it was related with the Silk waste already but one user removed it from there, I have added it again with explanation in edit summary. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should talk to the editor who removed it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think it will work that way but let me try. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's always best to first talk to someone you have a disagreement with rather than randomly pulling in uninvolved people to comment. Even if done with good intentions it can make the person feel like you're trying to gang up on them or win by numbers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well noted all! But please don't take me wrongly, I approached you because you did it for another page Cationization of cotton [[2]]. I have immediately requested the user[[3]] as per your advise. Warm regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Since the article is no longer an orphan, I removed the template. If someone restores it, check Special:Whatlinkshere/Bourette. If any actual ARTICLES - not redirects, discussion pages, etc. link to it, then it is not an orphan and the template can be re-removed. On the other hand, if it becomes orphaned again, the template can be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I could've done that but didn't in case the edit was re-reverted, which is why I suggested that Rajivvasudev should discuss things with Roxy before proceeding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC, and davidwr for your time and advise. Warm regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pesqara has asked for a deletion review of Sérgio Trindade. 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. —Cryptic 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can user:Random gay person please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited since Cluebot warned them at 01:37. If they resume, let me know, but there's nothing staggeringly urgent about their edits so far anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you removed some red linked schools from List of schools in Egypt a few months ago. There's currently an RfC going on in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools about if non-reliably sourced/red linked entries should be included in school lists or not. Which I thought you might want to participate in. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hiya, noticed you deleted a page called Defastenism, i think it should not have been deleted, it was a significant art movement at least as significant as impressionism was in France in its day. it had notable members such as Gary Farrelly, David McDermott, Marina Guinness and Padraic Moore but the actual wikipedia page that was there didnt do it justice. would reccommend leaving it there i.e. restoring it, as in my view it's a kind of cultural vandalism to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.79.239 (talk • contribs)

You clearly didn't read the header in the slightest (new messages to the bottom, please link the article, please provide sources when requesting undeletion), and you've accused me of cultural vandalism, so we're not off to a great start. TLDR based on every other similar request on this talk page: consensus at AfD was to delete, I am not undeleting unless there are reliable sources, and I won't respond to posts that present garbage sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If [4] has any useful history, please restore it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you were the closing admin on the deletion discussion for the article. User:Alden Loveshade and I both worked on the article in draftspace and brought in additional content and citations from independent reliable sources. I ask you to review the current state of the userfied draft at User:Alden Loveshade/Raegan Revord. If we want to pursuit bringing the article back to mainspace, which process should we follow (just ask you as closing admin, a deletion review on the article to see if it's ready to recreate in mainspace, etc.)? Royalbroil 03:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise submitting it to WP:AFC. The people who do new article reviews can assess it and see if it's suitable for mainspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you and thanks for volunteering here at Wikipedia! Royalbroil 03:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I moved the page to Draft:Raegan Revord now that you have submitted it for WP:AFC review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you! Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rod Taylor (American football). 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. User:Editorofthewiki brought this AFD to DRV and forgot to notify you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Community Regional Medical Center. 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.

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! When closing AFDs, I'm sure you're fully aware that backlinks to the deleted article should be removed, if it was deleted without chance of recreation. Only you forgot to do so once here.. Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XfDcloser oversight. For what it's worth, if you come across something like that in the future, you can deal with it via Twinkle's unlink feature without needing to ask. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the PROD for this one as we tend to keep articles on clubs that have competed in national cup competitions. I've added some evidence on the talk page for this. I'm still kinda 'meh' about the notability of the subject, though. Spiderone 22:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not exactly sold on the sourcing, it's basically routine local coverage - but it's also not a hill I care enough to die in an AfD about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to delete the the draft can you please suggest how to do that Publicspeaker2020 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you just leave it alone for 6 months it will automatically be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friendo, I heard you got paid billions of dollars to delete this article's previous incarnation. I'd like to inquire how one goes about getting a hut in the Maldives. Kthx. Praxidicae (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have to join the cabal. You have to sacrifice burnt caviar at midnight under a new moon to signal your desire to join the cabal, who will reply within a fortnight's time by way of a message shrieked by a black falcon. Then there's a lengthy initiation period that includes the learning of mystical chants such as the ge'engie and encórpe, among others. Eventually you have to start recruiting others to the cabal, and once you make Platinexus VIP 80k level from your downline's edit counts and chanting bonuses, you get the jet-powered cabana in the Maldives. But don't spread it around too much, I don't want it to get overcrowded here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit needs some of this and maybe even this because of CSD ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {(-1)}}}$. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but the zeroth rule is, you can talk about the cabal as much as you want as long as you remember there is no cabal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have given up on Wikipedia given the decisions it makes on deleting quality articles but this is one that truly deserves to be reversed. Maybe in death Wikipedia can see merit in Mark Bagshaw that it didn’t in life.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/teenage-tragedy-led-to-life-advocating-for-disability-reform-20201126-p56i43.html

I won’t work on it but maybe you can. SproulesLane (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't try to guilt-trip me into doing work you don't want to do. I'm fine with restoring to your user-space if you want to work on it, but the fact that I closed a deletion discussion three years ago doesn't make me responsible for recreating the article at your whim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t trying to guilt trip you in to anything at all. Your response is exactly why I wouldn’t try to do anything at all to a deleted bio because I couldn’t deal with the rude response that I would get by restoring it. It was deleted after a vexatious editor called for everything to be removed by me and hastily. You removed it so I thought you might like to restore it. I have no idea how I get something from a user-space to an article and don’t seem to be able to start something from scratch any more. In future I’ll never bother you again given your response. It calls in to question your desirability as person you decides what is deleted and what isn’t. I presumed goodwill on your part but I was mistaken. Sorry SproulesLane (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't come here and ask for help or advice, you came here and complained that you were giving up on Wikipedia then said "I won’t work on it but maybe you can". That's a guilt trip, and I'm not into it. As an administrator, I don't decide what gets deleted when closing AfD discussions, I enact the consensus that develops at the discussion. In the case of Mark Bagshaw, it was a clear consensus to delete. My role was simply to carry that out.

Your account is auto-confirmed, so you should easily be able to create new articles in mainspace, although in this particular case since it was deleted at AfD I would recommend working on it in draft or userspace instead. To that end, my offer to restore the article to your userspace remains open. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A clear consensus in two days between the 13 and 15 December with two deletes, one weak keep and one weak delete. The first was no more than a vote and the three others saw merit in the bio but didn’t think the refs were significantly strong. At the time the nominator for deletion was nominating almost every bio I had ever worked on and I was flat out defending them. As an administrator maybe you were too hasty but it would be unwise to question your ability. I have no idea what an auto-confirmed account is so I will just have to hope that someone else will fix this up. SproulesLane (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-confirmed means you have more than 10 edits and your account is more than 4 days old, which is the only requirement necessary for creating new articles. There is nothing preventing you from creating new pages. Four deletes vs one keep is a fairly strong consensus, and even the weak keep admitted there wasn't sufficient sourcing to justify most of the claims in the article. AfD debates run for a week unless relisted, so the timeframe of the comments is hardly relevant. In any case, in the time you've spent here complaining about me, you could've been working on the article in your userspace already. Do you want it restored, or do you just want to argue with me about an AfD whose result was settled three years ago? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sat for a week with no comment as it was poorly listed but you were so swift to delete it and there was no real discussion after two days. I’m so pleased that you think you did the right thing because that is all that matters. You are the font of all wisdom and I know nothing and can do nothing. As an administrator you are very rude and dismissive. After years of productive editing I was driven out of my old role by the likes of you. In 2017 I started a fresh because I was locked out and could only create a draft with Creating Draft:Harold Lobb under my new user name. That has now been dumped as I don’t know how to proceed. I just make very basic changes when I see mistakes. This is where it will have to stay as you are not prepared to help. This is not a friendly community with people like you at its helm. Sadly the Mark Bagshaw won’t be given a bio. SproulesLane (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered three times now to help, and you refuse because you want someone else to do the work for you. I'm not interested in writing the article. I don't write content I'm not interested in. It's as simple as that. I'm happy to restore Mark Bagshaw to your userspace for you to work on. I'm also happy to restore the Harold Lobb draft as well since it was only deleted because the draft expired. It's your call. Anything not being done here is on you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grounding (earthing) culture. Could you restore it to my userspace? I'll pick from it to fill the gap in Nature therapy (which mentions grounding in the lead but has no mentions in the body). Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mm I think if you're merging from it I have to pop it back into mainspace so it can be redirected to nature therapy. Will do shortly :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, ok, I restored it at Grounding (earthing) culture and redirected it straight to nature therapy. The content is in the history for merging at your leisure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And  Done Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, you participated in this discussion in its early stages. Therefore, I would take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season again. In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation and please feel free to delete this message from your page, if you so wish. Thanks again and kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the still-blue-link in the long list here left blue intentionally? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, XfDcloser did a thing. Fixed, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it failed to do a thing. But I know what you mean, and thanks for clearing it out by hand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not alert me of a PROD or article deletion again, I barely visit this site nowadays let alone have time to waste on trying to save articles that deletionists have made up their mind aren't notable anyway. Thankyou.16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopædius (talk • contribs)

Those notifications are automated via Twinkle. I'll do my best to remember to uncheck the option for you, but I can't guarantee I'll never forget, I'm sorry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletions that are closed as redirects, please remember to reassess the page as redirect as well (e.g. Truckhaven, California). Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try but no promises I'll always remember. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Premeditated Chaos,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

See the AFD, it does have coverage in sources but you didn't find them..† Encyclopædius 18:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate the effort to eliminate articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria, but in this case, the basis for deletion was not based on correct information. While the books listed on the page of this author at the time of deletion were in "hardly any libraries," as one user put it, that is not true of his novel Sling Creek. See the record of it here: https://www.worldcat.org/title/sling-creek/oclc/233598113?referer=br&ht=edition

I would politely request that you restore the article or initiate a deletion review, and I'll be happy to update it with more recent titles added.

Thanks, LC | Talk 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus for deletion at the AfD, so I am not going to overturn. If you have substantive sources which indicate that the consensus was not correct, by all means show them to me, but aside from that, no. You're free to take it to DRV, but given the unanimous consensus I doubt it will be overturned there either, since DRV is mostly for correcting instances of closer error. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aflaq Peer (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help you with something? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable review you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thanks Gog! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its talking about the Germans killed soldiers killed in the book he has it like this, (In the Soviet Union, Germany would lose no less than 10 million of its total 13.5 million men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner during the entire war, and the Red Army would end up claiming credit for 90 per cent of all Germans killed in the Second World War.)28 that's why I worded it like Some historians estimate that the Red Army was responsible for 90% of German soldiers killed during World War II.XFO-12 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you read it it's open to interpretation the way it's worded. Are you ok with the way I put it since it's also from the book https://www.academia.edu/21745112/The_Myth_of_the_Good_War_America_in_the_Second_World_War and since its talking about the German military casualties before in the opening.XFO-12 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XFO-12, no apologies needed. You're right; when I went back to read it a third time it is worded very ambiguously. I think the wording you have now works well. Cheers! (and thanks for the bubble tea!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that the wording was very open to interpretation. I hope we can move past this and maybe work together on a page in the future hope you have a good 2021! XFO-12 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to be the first to congratulate you for getting Islanders to Featured Article status. Seemed like smooth sailing overall and I hope that you'll be writing up more gaming articles in the future. GamerPro64 23:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey look, I was just going to come over to congratulate you. Good Job! Le Panini ^[🥪] 14:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! I appreciate the help both of you gave at the PR and at the FAC. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Premeditated Chaos! The article you nominated, Islanders (video game), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Islanders (video game). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this close (I missed this discussion whilst the AFD was up) I think probably an article could reasonably have been written on this subject that would pass WP:GNG. Particularly the article in 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die is actually a two-page article and thus actually a WP:SIGCOV pass, and there was a Boston Globe article about the game. Do you think we can do a refund on this so I can try an upgrade? FOARP (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm not that picky about undeleting articles for experienced users like yourself, but the deletion consensus was pretty solid, and the 1001 Video Games source was discussed at the AfD. I had a look at at epub of it, and it's less than 300 words. I'm not that convinced that it, plus a short Globe article, are sufficient to hit GNG. Is there any other reliable sourcing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Premeditated Choas,

On 1/21 you deleted my draft called "Draft:STEMconnector" and it was very much still a draft and I was working through changing the language. I'm new to Wikipedia and cannot seem to find any of the text I had written and is now deleted. Can you send me the text you deleted or restore the deleted page so that I can finish it and make the changes necessary to meet Wikipedia's rules? It was not a completed draft or something that was intended for review... because it was not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougpod (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the page was that it was extremely promotional in tone, which we don't allow on Wikipedia. It reads like a press release from the company (and in fact, almost all the sourcing was to the company itself). Given that, I have to ask - are you connected with STEMconnector in any way? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC, I just found out that the article "List of Sony A-mount lenses" has been deleted last year with you being the closing admin. Per our rules for AfDs, as a major contributor to or IIRC even creator of the article I should have been notified about the nomination. However, I was not and so could not join the discussion to provide background on the article and camera system.

As the article is about an obviously notable topic, was carefully researched, was in no way promotional, and contained only accurate information (see archived snapshot: [5]), I would have contested the nomination. It is obvious that the nominator did not carry out the necessary homework WP:BEFORE the nomination (nor did the only two(!) commentors). As Sony is one of the three major camera brands wordwide, and A-mount lenses are a major part of the Sony α system (which Sony inherited from Konica Minolta and Minolta), the system has more than 35 years of history with millions of lenses sold, the topic is quite notable, and having a comprehensive list of Sony A-mount lenses is of encyclopedic importance for Wikipedia. The article also answers many questions frequently asked by users in photo forums, so we are not doing our readers any service at all to not have it, in fact, it looks really bad on us. We also have similar lists for Minolta A-mount and Sony E-mount lenses as well as for Nikon, Canon and other vendor camera systems. So, deletion per WP:GNG or list-cruft is absurd. The system is widely discussed in printed publications and on many websites, so that a long list of sources could be brought by for each of the lenses. Looking at the archived snapshot it is true, that the article was poorly sourced, but only due to a lack of time (on my side) and the fact that it was so obvious that this is a notable topic to anyone even remotely into photography that it was not deemed necessary to have references immediately. Our normal procedure for poorly sourced articles and contested contents is to tag them accordingly in order to motivate editors to bring by the requested references, not to swiftly delete whole articles on notable subjects. It is saddening to see that it is possible that nominations like this can slip through causing significant damage to the project and trashing carefully researched contributions. It is such a waste of resources...

If you can spend a couple of minutes, it would be great if you could do a quick search on Google to verify my statements on notability above and see for yourself that I am not making anything up and that an abundant amount of sources exists out there, so the topic should never have been deleted. I hope this would be convincing enough to restore the article and tag it for improvement of references, so that editors can start to bring by references without having to start to research everything from scratch. I don't have much time at present, but I would try to repair the once carefully set up infrastructure around this article (it had many incoming links), which got trashed along with the deletion, but it would probably take weeks. I do not, at present, have enough time to bring by sources for every detail (although I have many in my library), but I can bring by at least a few generic ones to show notability and for easier cross-reference.

Thanks for your kind consideration. Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So first of all, there is actually no rule that anyone be notified about AfD discussions. Twinkle generally automatically generates a courtesy notice to advise the creator (which was not you), but it is generally considered the responsibility of interested editors to keep an eye on articles and participate in deletion discussions. The existence of similar lists doesn't mean anything with regards to this list; it may mean that the other lists also need to be taken to AfD and evaluated. I frankly don't see any indication that the article as written was "carefully researched" - it had one source, and that was a forum post. You've spent a lot of space telling me the lens range must obviously be notable, but not a lot of space showing me sources that actually indicate that. If you want me to overturn a solid-consensus AfD from a year ago, you need to put in the work of finding sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources need to be provided, but not necessarily by me alone - I can only work on a limited amount of topics in parallel...

If you check my contributions you will see that I typically add references along with the contents and are retrofitting missing references all over the place. Even if I was not the article creator, I know that I created several other (better sourced) lists, and I know that I spent literally weeks to triple-check everything to be accurate also in this article. It takes a lot of time to create such a list, even without the references, so I can understand why many editors tend to add references at a later step (although this is not ideal, of course). I fully agree that the given source leaves the article in a bad state in regard to WP:RS, but this does not mean that the topic would not be notable per se, or the information not be accurate & verifiable.

With just two commentors, even a single well-reasoned "Keep" would have made it at least a "No consensus", so not notifying those per WP:AFDLIST who put effort into the article made quite a difference, and could even be considered as unconstructive and tactical - after all, we are always seeking for the best possible solution for this encyclopedia.

Either way, the reason why I contacted you in good faith is not to look back but because I see that we have a problem now not having an article about this topic (it was a vital part of the backbone structure around various Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony/Zeiss photographic topics) and I want to help fix these issues:

You want sources in the article, I want them as well. Luckily enough, I can provide many of them, even for the details - nevertheless, I hope that other editors will join in a collaborative effort, because, realistically, I need more time for it than I currently have (because there is a huge backlog of queued stuff prepared for other articles already). I might be able to find some time on the weekend to collect at least enough sources to clearly demonstrate notability beyond any doubt and allow to verify many of the details already.

If I cannot convince you to do a quick Google search to see for yourself that the topic is notable and the info is verifiable, please userfy so that I can work on it when I will find the time. However, I would have thought that just restoring would have been the better solution in the interest of the project as the community can clearly provide most of the sources as well so I could devote more time on topics where only experts can provide the necessary references. Thanks.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot of verbiage about how many sources are available, and a whole paucity of sources linked. I'm not asking you to source the entire article right this second, but if you want me to overturn a unanimous-consensus AfD from a year ago, you can put in the work to show me at least a couple of substantive reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 2-0 unanimous-consensus with both votes on the same day. Never mind the fact that the world was in a global pandemic and people might have been worried about other things than an article for deletion. Deleting the article was out of line, it's like deleting Windows XP editions. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of when votes were made is irrelevant to closure. So is the fact that we're in a pandemic, unfortunately - the AfD process has not been altered on this account. Sources please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect that you want sources to be produced here rather than in the article, and I said I have a huge backlog and won't be able to provide anything before the weekend, anyway. The backlog hasn't cleared, but since you can't be bothered with doing at least a quick Google search to ensure that my statement is correct, for a start here are some sources, and pointers for more:

• Hohner, Michael (2021) [2004]. "Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony Alpha lens data".
• Kölliker, Stephan (2010). Das Sony Alpha Vollformat-System - Objektive, Zubehör, Optimierung, Anwendung [The Sony Alpha full-frame system - Lenses, accessories, optimizations, applications] (in German) (1st ed.). Verlag Photographie. ISBN 978-3-933131-65-2.
• α Lenses (PDF). San Diego, California, USA: Sony Electronics, Digital Imaging Division. 2012. DI11012. (one example of several editions in various languages with significantly differing contents and size)
• https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses?subcategoryId=lenses&view=List&page=1 (go to the specs pages of the individual lenses)
• https://www.sonyalphalab.com/category/reviews/lens-reviews/a-mount-lens-reviews/
• https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/#alphalenses
• Many detailed technical and creative reviews on individual lenses by internationally renowned professional photographers and authors like Michael Reichmann, David Kilpatrick, Gary L. Friedman, and others, who have written extensively on this topic
• Lens reviews in various photographic magazines and books
• Sony original documentation: Individual user manuals (in various languages), individual service manuals (3 manuals per lens discussing technical details including construction plans, schematics, all parts, assembly/disassembly, calibration, testing), commercially available as printed books or PDFs, but not online (I have close to hundred of them in my personal archive, but it obviousy takes time to cite from them)
• various articles on lenses on Sony's web-sites, past and present (older stuff through archive.org)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the sourcing bearing out your claim of notability. What you've linked to here is self-published blogs (mostly spec details) and spec sheets from Sony. It's not sourcing I would accept on any other topic, and I don't see a reason to make an exception for this one. If you want to take it to WP:DRV, by all means do so, but if this is the best sourcing available for the topic, I don't see myself changing my mind on this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my request to be a pending changes reviewer. I will definitely apply again later when I have enough edits. However just out of interest, how many main space edits would be considered a “measurable track record”? When I first applied I only had a few (hence the bot message), however as it stands I now have almost 550 total edits and 230 main space. Hopefully this will increase a bit after I finish the CVUA course. Thanks for your time, Skingo12 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent history of approved requests, most approved users had over 1000 live edits total, with 60% or more being in mainspace, so I declined your request with that standard in mind. I would say finish the CVUA thing and see where that takes your edit count, then reapply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the quick reply and the advice and I do apologise for wasting your time. I wouldn’t have applied if I knew the necessary edits. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, no time wasted at all. Actually hell just drop me a message here when you're over the 1000 edit mark and I'll take a look for you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC

Hi, I have now reapplied for PCR permissions and rollback having passed the 1000 edit mark and am now on my 5 day monitoring period at the CVUA. I was wondering if I could take you up on your offer? Thanks again, Skingo12 (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skingo, I don't see any issues; looks like you're good to go. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again! Skingo12 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your help at CCI. With your contributions, a case that was recently open is almost done already! Keep up the great work. :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks MrLinkinPark333 :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your move of Huriyah al Jadidah to Qaryat al Ḩūrīyah al Jadīdah. 'Qaryat' isn't really needed here, it's just Arabic for 'village'. Notably there is also a Huriyah (الحورية, not الحرية) village in the same district, so Huriyah al Jadidah ('New Huriyah') presumably refers to being 'new' in comparison with the (presumably) old Huriyah village. Wikimapia, which isn't WP:RS, says the Huriyah al Jadidah village is also referred to as Shukran village. Notably in google maps Shukran village appears, just south of Huriyah village. This Kuwait News Agency report details the recapture of Shukran, Huriyah and 4 other Shirqat villages from IS in 2016, https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2534819&Language=ar . This news report details the opening of health centre in Shukran village, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkb81xxCANw . Seems Shukran would be a better name for the article. --Soman (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it because the only RS I could find re: the name was GNIS, which has it as Qaryat al Ḩūrīyah al Jadīdah. That being said, GNIS has its faults. If you're convinced Shukran is the better name, do as you will. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey how are you? The article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janardhana_Maharshi) was deleted, As I've not given any links before. They were added later and are legit. Please undelete the Article, as he is a very notable Person. Thank you. Please find the sources:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

TejaTanikella (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanikella teja, per your request I have undeleted the page. Thank you for providing sources without me having to ask; not many people do that. Since it has been less than 24 hours since I closed the deletion debate, I have re-opened it and relisted it for further comment. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janardhana Maharshi. I recommend you follow that link and post your sources as well as a rationale for why the article should be kept. Cheers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and keep up the good work! Cheers!!TejaTanikella (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I see you haven't commented at the AfD yet; please don't forget to do that or else anyone else commenting might not see your sources from here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done that! Thanks a lot for reminding me again! You rock!! TejaTanikella (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have deleted a bunch of links to Chestnut Hill Academy using XFDCloser. I'm not entirely sure why this happened, but my guess is because the page previously was a redirect that had a bunch of old text in it, including a link to Lloyd Yancey, and perhaps XFDCloser naively assumes that if a link to an article being deleted is found on a redirect, the redirect targets that article and thus links to that redirect should also be removed (but the redirect itself doesn't need to be deleted?). I've reverted one of the removals, but since I'm not entirely sure what happened here I'll let you undo the rest (assuming they were accidental/caused by a bug in XFDCloser). (I haven't looked into what the deal with Chestnut Hill Academy and Springside Chestnut Hill Academy is either; I'm not sure if they've been merged or not and if they should have been merged or not). --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]